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. “‘There’s an African American man threatening my life.’ Amy Cooper knew exactly what she was doing when she criminalized Black skin”

    “Entitled white women bet on the fear of Black men and Black people so they can use the police as a weapon.”



    We live in a world where it is nothing short of a miracle that Christian survived this encounter with Amy. That’s oppression. What’s harrowing is how shocking it is that Minneapolis police were immediately fired over their involvement in the death of George Floyd. We’ve come to expect no justice at all or a long march to even subtle penalties.

    “My stomach hurts. My neck hurts. Please, please… I can’t breathe,” Floyd grunts from the ground, bearing the officer’s weight atop him. When you watch the video, the cops are unbothered by his pain and negligent when his body goes limp.

    They weren’t arrested, though. Like Amy, they were fired. And we are in awe.

    Angry white ladies who use their privilege to hurt others are in their feelings over being called out and facing the consequences. Listen, Karen, before you complain about another meme, remember this: You exhale freely.

    Black folk? We fight for every breath we take. And when we can’t breathe, this country puts its foot on our necks.

    — Jeneé Osterheldt, Boston Globe

  2. Republicans Tried To Suppress Vote In Florida And Failed

    Who gets to cast a ballot in Florida, the nation’s largest swing state, could well determine who will be the next leader of the country, and in the middle of the biggest global crisis in generations.

    With stakes this high, literally every vote matters. That’s why a ruling on Sunday by a federal judge in Tallahassee is so important.

    The opinion, by Judge Robert L. Hinkle of U.S. District Court, is 125 pages long, but nearly everything you need to know is summed up in its opening sentence: “The State of Florida has adopted a system under which nearly a million otherwise-eligible citizens will be allowed to vote only if they pay an amount of money.”

    That system violates at least two provisions of the Constitution, Judge Hinkle ruled: the Equal Protection Clause and the 24th Amendment, which bans poll taxes.

    The court’s decision, following an eight-day trial by videoconference, resolved a challenge to a law Florida’s Republican-led legislature passed last year. The law, known as S.B. 7066 and approved along strict party lines, requires Floridians with a criminal record to pay off all fines, fees and restitution owed in connection with their sentence before being eligible to vote.

    The law was a response to what had happened in the 2018 midterms, when Floridians overwhelmingly voted to amend the State Constitution to eliminate a lifetime ban on voting by people with a criminal conviction who had completed their sentences. Under the ban, roughly 1.4 million Floridians, disproportionately poorer people and people of color, were denied a voice in the electoral process. The amendment automatically restored voting rights to all but those convicted of murder and felony sex offenses.

    It was one of the biggest one-time enfranchisements in American history and part of a decades-long trend in dozens of states to make it easier for people with criminal records to get their voting rights back. It was also a bipartisan success, passing with more than 64 percent of the vote in a year when Republican candidates won both the governorship and a contested Senate seat.

    Why wasn’t that good enough for Republican lawmakers? Because, to put it bluntly, they are terrified of losing power, and they believe that as the number of people voting goes up, their odds of winning go down.

    But they didn’t want to say that directly, so instead they passed S.B. 7066, on the grounds that the amendment restored voting rights upon the completion of “all terms of sentence, including parole and probation.” Floridians understood when they voted for this, Republicans said, that “all terms” included financial obligations.

    Judge Hinkle wasn’t buying it. “The voters’ primary motivation plainly was to restore the vote to deserving felons at the appropriate time — to show a measure of forgiveness and to welcome even felons back into the electorate.”

    And as Republican lawmakers knew when they passed their legislation, a vast majority of people convicted of crimes are poor and will never be able to pay off their dues to the state. Between 2013 and 2018, Florida courts assessed more than $1 billion in fines and fees, labeling more than 80 percent of that amount unlikely to ever be paid.

    Florida has, in short, “shown a staggering inability to administer the pay-to-vote system,” Judge Hinkle wrote. He noted that he gave lawmakers ample warning and opportunity to fix the problems in a preliminary ruling last fall, and yet they have done essentially nothing.

    Edited from: “Republicans Tried To Suppress Vote In Florida And Failed”

    The New York Times, 5/26/20

      1. What all convicts are black ?
        Or are they all democrats ?

        Keep spinning.

        Only two states in the country do not limit the right of convicts to vote.

        Most of the rest conditionally restore voting rights after release.

        One common condition – is after you are off parole.

        Most states including northern states will not release you from parole until you have paid your fines and costs.

        Essentially exactly as in Florida.

        So Florida is engaged in republican racism ?

        What about California, New York, Conneticutt, Washington, Virginia, and Delaware who all have the same rules as Florida ?

        1. Uhh… where is the response ? I see California there in the list… did he run into the ramble to see if the crickets were still there?

    1. The population of Florida is 21M.
      Are you saying that something like 8% of Floridians are criminals ?

      The case sounds complex and simplistic explanations such as the nonsense you are offering are inherently wrong.

      The constitution pretty much leaves regulation of voting to the state legislatures and the congress. I would note the constitution explicitly says “state legislatures” – not state government – though the courts have not correctly applied the plain language of the constitution.

      Congress could choose to enfrinchise or disenfranchise those convicted of crimes.
      State legislatures absent federal law could also choose to do so.

      If floridians amended their constitution to re-enfranchise convicted criminals – they are free to do so. But the interpretation of state constitutions is outside the domain of federal courts.

      A state constitution can not create a federal right.

      The federal constitution does not preclude restrictions on convicted criminals voting.
      If you do not like that – change the law or change the constitution.

      It might be possible for the Florida State Supreme court to reach this ruling relying on the Florida constitution, but the federal courts can not.

      The federal courts do not have the power to say that a state is free to allow convicts to vote, or not, but not free to do so conditionally. To find that the federal constitution applies – it must apply the same to all states, not just florida.

      Further is it incredibly commonplace for states to condition rights on payment of fines and costs. Your drivers license, your business license, your occupational license are all not merely suspendable based on failure to pay fines and costs – but even failure to pay child support.

      I would note that this can be spun just as easily as democrats trying to steal an election by buying the votes of convicts. That of course presumes they will vote, much less vote democrat.

      1. And yet John, this federal judge did rule that the Florida law constituted a poll tax, previously found unconstitutional by the SC. The right to vote is a constitutional right and states may not restrict it for reasons in violation of the Constitution. His ruling will be appealed and another court overturn him, but not because the Constitution does not apply to individual voting rights.

        1. ALL rights are “constitutional rights”. Voting is important – so is free speech.

          The “poll tax” argument is spurious. The conclusion that fines and costs are taxes would have broad implications – well beyond voting. Any jurists that are playing games like “in this context” X is a tax are precisely what we do not want from judges.
          fines and costs are either always taxes or never taxes. And if they are not taxes, they are not poll taxes.

          As I noted, most states – including California, and New York have similar laws.
          Criminals can not vote unless they have cleared probation and parole,
          and in most states they can not clear probation and parole until they have paid their fines and costs and restitution.

          If FL law is “unconstitutional” then it is likely that 3/4 of the laws in the US restricting the right to vote of convicts are also constitutional.

          I do not have a dog in the fight over whether criminals may vote.

          But I do have one in applying the constitution as it is written.

          As you note this likely will be appealed, and probably reveresed.

          But we have a major problem when as we have today – the law and constitution are constantly being made up in unique ways in courts across the land.

          If we do not like the law and constitution we have – we can change it.
          The courts should apply the law and constitution as written.

          I do separately understand that direct democracy is both ludicrously stupid and a historically failed system. We have known that atleast since Socrates drank Hemlock.

          We also know that high voter turnout is a strong sign of instability.
          We must assure that we do not improperly discriminate in voting.
          But that does not mean that voting should be easy.
          In fact it should be as hard as we can possibly make it in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
          So that few people vote, that leads to weaker and less empowered government less willing to disrupt life.

          As even JS Mill noted, a monarch’s interest in meddling in the lives of his subjects is much more limited than each man’s interest in meddling in the lives of his neigbors.

          The ultimate goal is “the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order”

          1. John, you are welcome to your preferences in the law, but they are that only and not necessarily constitutional truths, or even desirable in my opinion. My preferences differ from yours and include voting among the “individual freedom” you close by elevating to the ultimate goal. I suppose that ultimate goal you envision is not for everyone.

            1. You beautifully point out the flaws in your won persepective.

              Law and Constitution CAN NOT be about “preferences”.

              It also can not be the special domain of lawyers.

              If one is going to be at risk of losing their property, their life, their liberty, the criteria – the law the constition MUST BE CLEAR.

              Government is FORCE. It is not a collection of preferences or oppinions, or points of view. It should not even be a collection of values.

              With respect to your assertions on voting.
              You are correct you have a preference for voting.

              It is absolutely true that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed – and we USUALLY conceive of that as being through votes.

              Though I would note that not voting is also consent, especially when government obey the same first principle as doctors – “first do no harm”.
              Of course government almost never follows that principle.

              Regardless, the consent of the government is not tautologically equivalent to voting.

              Maybe you are old enough to recall the collapse of East Germany and the USSR.

              One day millions of east germans took to the street and refused their consent to be governed, and the east german government collapsed immediately.

              No vote. Just vaporized. China came very close to the same thing at Tianamen, and it is deeply concerned about the protests in Hong Kong for exactly the same reason.

              Even totalitarian governments ultimately require the consent of the governed.
              Not votes.

              You are correct that voting is a preference.
              And that is my point. It is a tool that is part of acheiving the consent of the governed.
              There are very important aspects to that tool.
              But voting is NOT a principle. Democracy is not a principle.
              Both are as you say preferences that have served us moderately well.

              But they are not principles.

              The catagorical imperative is an example of an actual principle, or possibly even a meta principle.

              Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law

              We bar murder – that meets the requirements of the catagorical imperative.
              Mist every form of government in existance bars murder – even if some are weak in enforcing that proscription.

              Can the majority void the proscription against murder ?
              Does the preference of a majority exceed a catagorical imperative – universal law ?

              Properly constructed government is limited to catagorical imperatives – universal law.
              Law that can be imposed clearly without ambiguity and where any exceptions are clear and easy to understand – where the exceptions are themselves catagorical imperatives.

              Killing of others is permitted in self defense. Though that is not really an exception – it is not murder.

              It would not be very difficult to construct a government resting solely on near universally accepted catagorical imperatives. It would not matter much whether that government was a monarchy, a republic, or a democracy – so long as it constrained itself to that universally accepted law.

              Absolutely there are things that are preferences. They have small if any place in government.

            2. I would note – you are talking about goals.

              I am not. Fundimentally government should be static, not goal oriented.
              Or if not completely static then at most changing very slowly. It often takes centuries to determine that foundations that have worked for thousands of years have flaws.

              If you bake a high propensity for change into government – if you make it goal seeking, you have assured that it will become corrupt. The ability to control and shape the goals of government – force is an incredible lure and it will draw corruption like a rotting carcas draws flies.

              BTW, none of this is secret. We have known it for a very long time.
              We keep pretending that there is some short cut.
              That we can government in some democratic goal seeking preference based way and reach utopia, while actively driving ourselves to chaos.

              Chaos, freedom, liberty are not atributes of government – government is force.
              Liberty – the protection of actual rights is the result of good limited government resting on universal or atleast near universal law.

              1. John Say – there is one over-riding goal for every government, protect its citizens.

                1. “John Say – there is one over-riding goal for every government, protect its citizens.”

                  It is to secure the liberty of its citizens.

                  That is mostly possible.

                  human mortality is 100%.

        2. Generally I would hold rights as broadly as possible, and apply strict scrutiny to all rights.

          But as constitutional law currently stands, that is not the case.

          If as we see at this moment the right to assemble, the right to petition the govenrment the right to practice our religion can all be restricted in the public interests, then so can the right to vote.

          I will be happy to give unlimited voting rights, if you will accept that the same bars to government restrictions apply to all other constitutional rights – enumerated or not.

          1. John, you clearly think that current restrictions in a time of national crisis are violations of important principles. The survival of individuals and the state – in a democracy that is a benign force – are critical to the continuation of other individual rights when the threat subsides and only paranoids and drama mongers would think these temporary restrictions are some 1st step to permanent enslavement. Are we modern Americans so spoiled and disconnected from what actual survival against a national threat might require of us that we think first of ourselves? The WWII generation would know what to do.

            1. Covid 19 does not threaten our national survival.
              The reaction to it by exaggerating whack jobs does though.

              Yes, the WW2 generation would tell you to get your rear end to the bomb factory as you whined we need an occupational health and safety law to be certain no one is injured in any way. Then you’d flap your arms and scream but not convince them.
              Then you’d cry and whine people are going to die in the war, and it should be avoided by staying home. If everyone just stays home everything will be okay you wail and moan. Then you’d shriek, I’m staying home and all of you are too !

            2. “John, you clearly think that current restrictions in a time of national crisis are violations of important principles. ”
              True. At the same time the evidence is increasingly clear – they do not work.

              Look at data from arround the world. Tell me a single policy or restriction that can be determined based on evidence actually worked. There are a few, but very very few.

              Even things that I personally would continue to practice based on my personal beleif that they might benefit me – do not have empiracle evidence to support them.

              “The survival of individuals and the state – in a democracy that is a benign force – are critical to the continuation of other individual rights when the threat subsides and only paranoids and drama mongers would think these temporary restrictions are some 1st step to permanent enslavement. ”

              But you already lost the argument. There are many elements necescary to justify the use of force – you are arguing a utilitarian justification – that is necescary, but not sufficient to justify the use of force, and it is evident to all but the blind that you can not present an evidence based empiracle justification – a utilitarian justification, for any of the measure you wish to impose by force.

              Not only that but even if you actually met the utilitarian requirement, we have seen that nations that did NOT impose those requirements by force, saw their peoples adopt those restrictions to as great an extent voluntarily and chaffed less against them.

              As I noted utility is ONE requirement to justify the use of force – necessity it another.
              You may not use force to accomplish what you do not need force to accomplish.

              I would think that it would be trivial to grasp that both utility and necescity were trivilaly understood requirements for the use of force.

              “Are we modern Americans so spoiled and disconnected from what actual survival against a national threat might require of us that we think first of ourselves? The WWII generation would know what to do.”

              War – like WWII is complex, and I am not looking to debate it, except to note that it is radically different from the threats of the moment.
              Advocates of greater government like to pretend that their personal favorite issue deserves the same national focus as war – hence we pretend that there is a war on drugs, and war on poverty, a war on name your favorite problem.

              War is supposed to be a marshalling of force against an existential threat to the state,
              A presumptively legitimate state that is protecting the liberty of individuals from infringement by force. The use of force to thwart illegitimate force.
              There are instances when war can be justified. But those things that pretend to be wars can not.

              Again none of this is new.

    2. Peter – your court imposed fines and restitution are not a poll tax. I think this losses on appeal.

        1. Listened to the song. Love it. Loved it back in the day. I know there is no ‘trump’ in the song. But you’ve got some trump in you.

  3. In the video in the article at 38 seconds she he is an african american man he has a ” vise grinder ” (?)

    What does she say he has – what weapon ?

  4. Press Room

    “Audubon Statement on Incident in Central Park’s Ramble”



    In response to an incident in Central Park’s Ramble that went viral on Twitter, the National Audubon Society issued the following statement:

    “Black Americans often face terrible daily dangers in outdoor spaces, where they are subjected to unwarranted suspicion, confrontation, and violence,” said Audubon SVP for State Programs Rebeccah Sanders, who is white. “The outdoors – and the joy of birds – should be safe and welcoming for all people. That’s the reality Audubon and our partners are working hard to achieve. We unequivocally condemn racist sentiments, behavior, and systems that undermine the humanity, rights, and freedom of Black people. We are grateful Christian Cooper is safe. He takes great delight in sharing New York City’s birds with others and serves as a board member of the New York City Audubon Society, where he promotes conservation of New York City’s outdoor spaces and inclusion of all people.”


  5. A tale of two Coopers, one as old as the nation


    May 26, 2020 2:22 PM CDT

    An ugly moment was caught on video in New York City’s Central Park over the holiday weekend: A white person threatened to call the police on a Black person for the high crime of asking her to respect the rules and leash her dog.

    Amy Cooper was walking her dog in the Ramble section of Central Park on Monday morning, when she encountered Christian Cooper (no relation), an avid birdwatcher. Unleashed dogs are a specific problem, he told CNN. “That’s important to us birders because we know that dogs won’t be off leash at all and we can go there to see the ground-dwelling birds,” some of the 230 different species of birds that have been seen in the area. “People spend a lot of money and time planting in those areas as well. Nothing grows in a dog run for a reason.”

    Amy Cooper, an executive at Franklin Templeton Investments, an asset management firm, had an immediate reaction to the correction. “I’m taking a picture and calling the cops,” she is heard saying in the video taken by Christian Cooper while struggling to contain her dog. “I’m going to tell them there’s an African-American man threatening my life.”

    It was a vile threat, and Christian Cooper clearly knew what she meant.

    “I videotaped it because I thought it was important to document things,” he told CNN. “Unfortunately we live in an era with things like Ahmaud Arbery, where Black men are seen as targets. This woman thought she could exploit that to her advantage, and I wasn’t having it.”

    The summoning of the police to address the presence of a Black person, typically minding their own business, isn’t simply poor judgment or a temporary lapse in civility. It’s part of a broader tactic that white people have long used—often without thinking—to summon the state’s power on their behalf with the intent on restoring racial order.

    The last few years have provided a master class in this behavior.

    The most famous example was in April 2018, when Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson were arrested after a Starbucks manager in Philadelphia called the police to report them for, well, sitting in the store. “I have two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave,” she told the 911 dispatcher. That was not quite true; they had said they were waiting for a friend to arrive. The incident, caught on video by an alarmed bystander, forced Starbucks’ CEO Kevin Johnson to immediately apologize. A month later, the company closed some 8,200 stores for four hours of storewide diversity training, some of which they made public.

    But the behavior is widespread. A white student living in a graduate dorm at Yale called campus police to confront and remove minding-their-own-business Black students not once, but twice. A white woman called the police to remove a Black man wearing socks in the swimming pool of their apartment complex. A white woman called the police on an 8-year-old Black girl selling water from a sidewalk shop without a permit. Another in Ohio called the police on a 12-year-old Black entrepreneur mowing a neighbor’s lawn. Police in California, some of whom were in a helicopter, surrounded four Black people as they loaded suitcases in their car after leaving an Airbnb. Neighbors thought it was a robbery. One of them was Bob Marley’s granddaughter, a filmmaker.

    And most recently, a Black delivery driver and his coworker were blocked from leaving a gated community in Oklahoma City by a white man who insisted on knowing why they were there. Travis Miller documented the incident in a now-viral Facebook Live video, tears streaming down his face. “My intention was to cover myself in case he called my employer and said I did something other than what I did,” Miller told NBC News. He was also afraid that if the police were called, he’d be pegged as the problem.

    And we all know what that means.

    “Non-Black people in this country have been fed a steady diet of propaganda from their parents, their schools, their churches, and from the media that tells them that people of color, and particularly black folks and Latinx people are not to be trusted,” Jamilah Lemieux, a cultural critic and writer told The Guardian in 2018. “They’ve been taught that we are criminals, that we are violent that we are predators and think we need to be monitored.”

    So tensions boil over quickly when Black people encroach typically “white spaces,” the boundaries of which have been in flux since the Civil Rights era, suggests Elijah Anderson, the William K. Lanman, Jr. Professor of Sociology at Yale University.

    His research shows that still-widespread segregation impacts the white and Black psyche in different ways. Progress aside, “[t]he wider society is still replete with overwhelmingly white neighborhoods, restaurants, schools, universities, workplaces, churches and other associations, courthouses, and cemeteries, a situation that reinforces a normative sensibility in settings in which Black people are typically absent, not expected, or marginalized when present.” White people typically avoid Black space, he writes, but Black people are required to navigate the white space as a condition of their existence.

    And if they fail to navigate that space correctly, their existence may be threatened with the help of the state.

    As we discuss sociology today, Amy Cooper is having different discussions. She had been put on administrative leave, after the viral video hit Twitter yesterday, making her a trending topic and temporarily crashing her employer’s website. Her rescue dog has also been surrendered to a shelter. She was even forced to “apologize.”

    By press time, Amy Cooper had been fired. “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,” the company said in a tweet. Next year, when something similar happens, her name will be evoked. In five years, her story will be part of someone’s Master’s thesis, a permanent part of a canon without end.

    But Christian Cooper is still alive, and that’s the good news here. Despite the drama, he is determined to reclaim the Ramble as a public space available to all. When asked the obligatory, “do you forgive her” question, he responded: “If it’s genuine and if she plans on keeping her dog on a leash in the Ramble going forward, then we have no issues with each other.”

    Ellen McGirt


    1. Laughing:
      “…he responded: “If it’s genuine and if she plans on keeping her dog on a leash in the Ramble going forward, then we have no issues with each other.”
      He’s clueless.

    2. Ellen……..Is this where we all start singing Kumbayah?

      It’s hard to take you seriously. If you really care about the black community, do something about that devastating death count of black on black crime in Chicago and Baltimore and elsewhere, and review the 53% of all black pregnancies that end in killing black babies and fetuses each year.

  6. There is more to this “story,” as said earlier. Paul C. Schultze posted clarifying info below. Should this woman’s life have been destroyed? IMO absolutely not.

    There is a line from a WH Auden poem: “Love your crooked neighbor with all your crooked heart.”

    This poem acknowledges the commonality of the human condition. The basic forces are all the same. This woman is not a villain. This man is not a victim.

    1. Anonymous I hope she does not commit suicide…..She’s lost her job, her dog, her privacy , she’s been in lockdown,…..People are lying about her through twitter. all over the country….I hope she has one helluva support system through friends or church. This is sad to me.

      1. She brought it on herself. Maybe she’ll grow up and lose her sense of privilege and entitlement.

        She’s too narcissistic to commit suicide. It won’t happen.

        1. So did he.

          You do not try to approach or lure another persons dog.

          There is not a rational world in which that is not more problematic than having her dog off the leash.

          1. John Say – show us on the doll where the bad man with the dog treat touched you? 😉

            1. “John Say – show us on the doll where the bad man with the dog treat touched you? 😉”

              Sharp quip.
              But not an argument.

              I linked to Christian’s FB post on this encounter.

              I have no idea what he actually said prior to the video – nor do you.
              We have only Amy and Christian to tell us.

              I strongly suspect that Christian’s FB post is innaccurate and self serving.
              But that does not matter.

              “You will not like it” is a THREAT. It may not be clear what the threat is, but it is still a threat.

              Amy is justified in treating a THREAT as a THREAT.

              The unspecified threat could be I will get loud and angry,
              or I will file a complaint for having an unleashed dog.

              Ir the threat could be more sinister – I will steal your dog,
              or I will become violent.

              Based on Christian’s own statements – “I carry treats for just this kind of intransigience” and his effort to lure the dog – it is reasonable to conclude that the threat was to the dog.

              But it was a threat regardless, and Amy was thus justified in threat.

              Further whether she was threatened is relevant as it is the determining factor as to whether her behavior on the video is reasonable or racist.

              If Christian did nothing more that repeatedly ask her to leash her dog, then Amy over reacted, and may even be guilty of false reporting.

              But if Christians conduct is objectively threatening or can even be subjectively viewed as threatening by a reasonable person – and that means the benefit of every doubt must go to Amy, then her conduct is reasonable and legal.

              Christian’s FB posts meet both the objective and subjective criteria for threatening.

          2. John Say – yes, the man said to her “if you are going to do what you want (no leash) then, so will I.” Then he held out a treat and called the dog to him. That is when she panicked. I would absolutely interpret what he did as threatening in that moment – no matter how calm and polite he was. She was alone in the Ramble and a possible sociopath was luring her dog to him? That is when he began filming his video. That man had an agenda. The woman’s life has now been destroyed by ‘internet savagery.’ He is not a victim and she is not a villain.

  7. This thread is another one JT can be really proud of and one which would surely entice African-Americans to consider voting GOP and for Trump. Who wouldn’t want to be part of this exciting movement?

    By the way, Chris Cooper in today’s NYTs.

    “Mr. Cooper said in the interview that he had been overwhelmed by the response to his video, but that the retribution against Ms. Cooper had taken him aback.

    “It’s a little bit of a frenzy, and I am uncomfortable with that,” he said. “If our goal is to change the underlying factors, I am not sure that this young woman having her life completely torn apart serves that goal.””

    I’m sorry Cindy and Squeaky, and any other fair flowers of our race had to hear those base and vile words.

  8. Another entitled white woman/person with her dog off-leash in area where dogs are not permitted to roam off-leash. She mistreated both the dog and the man who simply asked her to leash the dog. And she called the police. A total crazy overreaction on her part. I hope she gets some help and learns something…

    1. I don’t buy that – seems a partisan angle. The man tried to lure her dog away with treats… why would he do that ? I’d be very suspicious no matter who tried to do that to anyone’s dog.

            1. “….. the man who simply asked her to leash the dog.”
              Those are your words above right ?

        1. And not much of a story.

          Happens thousands of times a day accross the country.

          And Christian should not have tried to give a treat to a dog that was not his without the permission of its owner.

          ALSO end of story.

          In the end nothing of consequence here to see.

          But one woman’s life has been destroyed over what is at most a small mistake – certainly not a crime. And a man whose behavior was arguably worse is somehow a hero ?

          Both should have been forgotten.

          1. “But one woman’s life has been destroyed over what is at most a small mistake ”

            My question is (we now know she was fired) would her life had been destroyed if the man were white? We will never have an answer that is certain but it tells us a lot about our PC culture.

            1. “would her life had been destroyed if the man were white?”

              Is that even a serious question ? If Christian were white his sister Melody would not have posted this on twitter, no one would have paid nay attention, and it they had – Christian would be the perpatrator. The only group with less intersectional brownie points that straight white women is straight white men.

              And it is crystal clear that so many are deciding this based on intersectional browinie points rather than facts.

              Neither of these two are interesting people.

              And for all their flaws neither are great villians either.

              Amy is just not the next Grand Dragon of the KKK

              1. >>“would her life had been destroyed if the man were white?”
                >”Is that even a serious question ? ”

                It was a rhetorical question that underlines a major problem in our society. In the end it harms all including those that some wish to protect with PC actions.

                Amy demonstrated an hysteria that is not unusual for the progressive female in NYC.

                1. Paul seems to think I am some white knight for Amy.

                  I am attacking a false narrative. I do not care for Amy.

                  Paul has been swinging at me for myriads of posts, and completely missed the most effective volley against both of them.

                  Why didn’t they walk away ?

                  I do not buy the lunatic narative that Amy is deeply racist.

                  But both she and Christian should have walked away.
                  Both were wrong not to walk away.

                  But neither did, and I think that reflects flaws in progressive culture and eductation.

                  Amy did what she was taught to do – not flee to safety when threatened, something that should be instinctual. But to appeal to authority.

                  I do not think she was seeking to call down malevolent racist police storm troopers and Christian. I think she was doing what she was taught to do.

                    1. You and i are not in the same space.

                      You have nothing to fear from me, but my words,
                      and I nothing from you but your words.

                      If I anger you – you can not physically attack me.

                      We are in a debate, not a real confrontation.
                      or atleast one of us is.

                      You keep trying to divert attention from the facts, to make emotional appeals,
                      to read my mind, to pretend you know me or my intentions.

                      You are incapable of sticking to the facts.

                      This is really a small thing. There are not all that many facts.

                      We have expended a 1000 times more words than Amy and Christian.
                      And none of them change the actual facts.

                      If you strip away the emotions, the naratives and you stick to the facts, this whole thing is pretty small, mistakes all arround – but not equal mistakes all arround.

                      Christian threatened Amy and her dog.

                      Her misconduct is not proximate cause for any threat beyond calling law enforcement.

                      He ESCALATED – dangerously and deliberately.

                      And a world were facts were not clouded by emotions and false naratives, that would be clear.

                    2. John Say – you purport that your wife is an attorney. Ask her if Amy is the proximate cause of everything that happens.

                    3. I do not need to, proximate cause is a legal term related to tort law,

                      Unless Amy files a tort claim there is no meaning and no such thing as proximate cause in this context.

                      Further proximate cause is a scope limit – for an injured party to recover from another party they must meet multiple tests, your use of promximate cause more closely resembles the but-for test – which is NOT the meaning of proximate cause.

                      There are numerous theories of proximate cause, they are all LIMITS on the “but-for” test.

                      One facet of proximate cause is reasonable foreseability.

                      It is reasonably foreseeable that leaving a dog off a leash will result in the dog biting someone.

                      it is reasonably foreseable that it will result in a summary charge of violating the leash law.

                      It is not reasonably foreseeable that leaving a dog off a leash will result in the dog being poisoned, or you being threatened with anything beyond a leash law violation.

                      BTW foreseability is just the FIRST test for proximate cause and tort liability.

                    4. John Say – proximate cause
                      n. a happening which results in an event, particularly injury due to negligence or an intentional wrongful act. In order to prevail (win) in a lawsuit for damages due to negligence or some other wrong, it is essential to claim (plead) proximate cause in the complaint and to prove in trial that the negligent act of the defendant was the proximate cause (and not some other reason) of the damages to the plaintiff (person filing the lawsuit). Sometimes there is an intervening cause which comes between the original negligence of the defendant and the injured plaintiff, which will either reduce the amount of responsibility or, if this intervening cause is the substantial reason for the injury, then the defendant will not be liable at all. In criminal law, the defendant’s act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter.

                      I would posit that proximate cause is part of misdemeanor law as well.

                    5. Please reread your own citation.

                      There is no murder or manslaughter – so that is entirely irrelevant.

                      The only injured party is Amy.
                      Melody’s posting of the video lead to Amy’s dismissal – so we have atleast some elements of proximate cause there.

                      If the dog bit Christian it MIGHT be possible to argue that Amy’s negligent act was the proximate cause of Christian’s injury.
                      Of course if Christian was using a dog treat to lure the dog, there would be a strong counter argument for assumption of liability.

                      I would specifically look at the intervening events section of your cite.
                      We are going to have to ignore the fact Christian is NOT the plaintiff because in all other cases the entire cite just does not apply.
                      But eliding that gigantic problem – we have several intervening events from the start of this. Such as Christian’s threat and Christian’s attempt to lure the dog with a treat.
                      Those are all volitional acts so they break and chain of causation – proximate or otherwise.

                      So by your own citation Amy’s unleashed dog can only be the proximate cause of Christian getting bitten by the dog – which did not happen.

                      Regardless absolutely nothing in your except allows you to thread the entire sequence of events together as the reasonably foreseable outcome of leaving the dog of the leash.

                      Again PLEASE tell me you are not a practicing attorney ?

                    6. You can posit whatever you want. if you expect it to be accepted as fact you need to demonstrate it.

                      But using proximate cause in the most generic sense – because any attempt to fit your argument to legal proximate cause fails miserably.
                      in this fact patter there are both intervening events and volitional acts – choices,
                      and all of those shatter any chain of causality.

                      So Paul how much more spaghetti do you have to throw at the wall to see if you can find something that will stick ?

                      So far:

                      The whole leash thing is nearly gone, there is a park rule not a law, it is not even a summary offence, it is pretty much the same as running at a pool, it can get you thrown out.

                      Leash law or not, Amy is responsible for her dog. If it bit Christian, he would have a claim – unless he lured the dog, which he did.
                      But no one was bit. If the dog damaged the park Amy would be responsible – to the Park, not Christian.

                      The giant hole in this entire mess is that Amy owes no duty to Christian that involves anything but his own person. Christian is NOT the park. He is not the park Service. He does not own the park, he does not have any personally enforceable interest.

                      By attempting to enforce a rule where he has no rights and is owed no duties, he is acting as a vigilante. And he himself is acting outside the law.
                      Worse as is common when people choose to take the law into his own hands Christian dances extremely close to crimes such as larceny and robbery.

                      Regardless, he instills a legitimate fear in Amy.

                      Amy calls 911, her statements to 911 are accurate, any lack of precision is not even close to the requirements for a false report. She was threatened by an african american man and is in fear for her life.

                      So what actual misconduct do we have:

                      A violation of a park rule by Amy.
                      A threat and action on that threat by Christian,
                      and a failure by both parties to retreat.

                      And this is the hill you want to die on ?

                    7. Why is it my obligation to prove that you are misusing a tort law legal term that has no application at all to this ?

                  1. John, as a progressive Amy was doing what she learned. Act aggrieved and protest. Do not think. Do not use conflict resolution skills. The enemy is stupid and must be eliminated.

                    Christian did the same thing using other progressive tactics. Plan ahead for a confrontation with the dangerous and stupid owners of unleashed dogs. Confront them with stronger numbers or power and push them backwards. Be devious.

                    Those on the thoughtless left are vacuous. They derive their power from the stupid, lazy and greedy. What they propose is not what you get. They climb the ladder by pulling others down or by holding onto the tail of the one ahead.

        1. “… Condoms are often strewed about the rustic bridges that cross the Ramble’s streams, and some female bird-watchers report that they have sporadically glimpsed flashers …

          Yes, a good way to get a woman’s protection away from her.

            1. Glad you informed the woman before she encountered the dog thief, because, you’re ‘not stupid’.

              1. “Stupid people. And plenty of them are here, defending this obnoxious woman.”

                Let’s fix that:

                Stupid and crazy people And plenty of them are here defending this obnoxious woman.

                  1. She showed her very true colors by taking offense to being asked to follow the leash law and then hanging her dog while fighting for her privileged self-righteousness. She lost her job when she called the police making a very false, And unfortunately too many times, possibly deadly if not illegitimate arrest on a concerned citizen who happens to be a black male. She crossed way too many lines for it to be ignored by her employer after it went public.

                    1. Christian by his own admission threatened to take her dog – and acted on that threat.

                      There is zero possibility of a false report claim.
                      There is a very small possibility of a prosecution of Christian for theft.

                      Failure to follow leash laws and other nanny state nonsense is not genocide.
                      It is also not attempted theft.

                      Christian is fortunate that he lives at a moment in which black men can threaten to steal the property of white women and get away with it because everyone is afraid of being called racist.

                      What are the lines she crossed ? Oh, Yeah, leash laws.
                      Absolutely destroy the life of anyone who dares to have a dog off a leash,
                      or worse still feels threatened when someone tells her he is going to steal her dog.

                    2. John Say – what words of Christian constitute the specific threat of stealing the dog?

                    3. “John Say – what words of Christian constitute the specific threat of stealing the dog?”

                      Christians own versions of his words are readily available to you.

                      Why do you presume specificity is necescary ?

                      If you offer a lollipop to a child to separate it from its mother – is that only kidnapping if you utter the words “I am going to kidnap your child” ?

                      Further there are two standards here.

                      The first is if you are trying to asses whether you can convict Christian of theft – that standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
                      In my area this meets that standard. But juries here convict based on dreams.
                      Probably in NYC the evidence here is insufficient for Beyond a reasonable doubt.

                      But when evaluating Amy’s response the standard is reasonable suspicion.

                      Does Christian’s words and actions rise to the level of reasonable suspicion ?

                      If they do Amy’s acts are reasonable.
                      If not she is guilty of false reporting.

                      You are blind if you think that Amy did not have reasonable suspicion that Christian’s actions and words constituted potential danger.

                    4. @John Say

                      Even Amy Cooper seems to recognize the error of her ways:

                      ‘Amy Cooper did not immediately respond to a call and email requesting comment from The Post. But in a public apology on Tuesday, she said she had “reacted emotionally and made false assumptions” about Christian Cooper.

                      ‘“I was the one who was acting inappropriately by not having my dog on a leash,” she wrote. “I am well aware of the pain that misassumptions and insensitive statements about race cause… I hope that a few mortifying seconds in a lifetime of forty years will not define me in his eyes.”‘


                      Joe is correct.

                      “Christian by his own admission threatened to take her dog – and acted on that threat.” -John Say

                      Really? Give us a link and a quote to back that up, buddy.

                    5. And in the USSR and PRC it is expected that those guilty of thought crime will confess and engage in self denunciation.

                    6. “Really? Give us a link and a quote to back that up, buddy.”

                      Read Turley’s article – it is in there.

                      Separately if you follow the rest of the posts here several others have cited FB posts by Chrisitian.

                    7. As I have said in prior posts – blue on blue warfare.

                      Clearly Amy Cooper is the KKK Neo-Nazi alt-right racist republican. that you have painted her as.

                      Or maybe she is just another left wing nut out for a walk in the park with her dog threatened by an entitle man who lost the victimhood contest because in the intersectional world of the left – white women rank lower than gay black men.

                      Regardlessm, Ms. Cooper had a choice between the red pill and the blue pill and she picked the blue one and remains blissfully ignorant of the real world.

                    8. So she’s alone confronted by some freak in a wooded park.
                      Who is she supposed to call, ghost busters?
                      It’s her fault you idiots claim police shoot people for no reason at all. That’s what you based your conclusion on.
                      You’re a joke.

            2. The only clear sin this woman committed was having her dog off the leash.

              Everything else is just the imperfect responses of imperfect people to stress, and to false presumptions of their own correctness.

              Christians own words have him threatening to take her dog.

              That is certainly “obnoxious”, and probably a crime.

              This is not about defending someone.

              This is about grasping the world is not perfect and letting go of inconsequential offences – and possibly having enough self awareness to understand that you are not the only one offended or threatened.

              Christian is incredibly self-unaware.

        2. Christian did not attempt to distract a dog attacking him.
          He tried to lure a dog that was NOT attacking him.
          That dances awfully close to attempted theft.

          The question is not why did Christian have dog treats – though that does bother me a little. Your hypothetical might explain that. But it is still a hypothetical.

          Christian USED dog treats – and not to distract an attacking dog.
          But to lure a dog. That is radically different.
          And it is NOT innocent conduct.
          As I said it is arguably criminal.

          Nothing Amy did is a crime.
          At worst having a dog off the leash MIGHT be a misdemeanor – not a crime.

    2. “It’s a reasonable wager” that this woman has had problems on the job. Maybe we’ll hear from some of her underlings.

      1. So what ?

        If we are not saints we should be publicly shamed infront of the entire country as neo-nazi racists ?

        This is an inconsequential encounter between two people who both made mistakes.

        It is New York Central park. There is not a KKK hood, or Swastika in sight.
        The odds are the two of them are both far left of center. Though who knows maybe Amy is the one alt-right female thug in all of New York City.

        You say maybe there is more to learn – why ? Why is any of it any of our business ?

        Besides if we are going to speculate, How about I do some:

        Woman alone with a dog in Central park ? Probably a victim of sexual assault. One in seven women are.

        If you can manufacture facts from whole cloth – why can’t I ?

        Regardless, presuming to no more than you do is unwise and nearly always leads to error. Guesses are not facts.

        The odds I am right that she is a rape victim are low – but higher than your claim she had problems at work. Or both could be true.

        Or most likely neither, and this just is what it is.

        Or Christian just had a fight with his boy freind and took it out on Amy,
        Or ….

        Lets stick to the fact we know, and frankly the rest neither matter nor are we entitled to, though you seem to beleive you are free to be a voyeur in everyone else’s life.

        That this has some much attention speaks to incredible boredom.

    3. Anonymous – here is a 2012 NYT article on The Ramble and birdwatching, etc.

      The Ramble in Central Park has long been known as a place where people prowl for anonymous sexual encounters. They are drawn by the cloak of dense vegetation, serpentine paths, giant boulders and meandering streams created by the park’s designer, Frederick Law Olmsted.

      The same elements have made the Ramble, which is just north of the Lake in the heart of the park, a magnet for bird-watchers, who know it as one of the best spots around to see migrating warblers and other songbirds on the Atlantic flyway. From the sky, the birds spy the verdant rectangle of the park amid the gray cityscape and gravitate toward the Ramble, with its ample sources of food and water.

      On Wednesday, the divergent worlds collided, in an attack on a 73-year-old woman who was raped and beaten near Strawberry Fields, a few blocks south and west of the Ramble. The victim, a bird-watcher who visits the park daily, had recently encountered her attacker in an area of the Ramble.

      A week and a half ago, the police said, she had seen him masturbating and then snapped a photograph of him. He demanded that she delete the photo; she refused, and the two struggled over the camera. Before the Wednesday assault, the police said, the suspect asked the woman, “Do you remember me?”

      Some bird-watchers say that the amount of cruising and sexual activity in the Ramble, most of it involving men, had declined, especially compared with the 1980s and ’90s, but that the seedy side of an otherwise Edenic part of the park persists. Condoms are often strewed about the rustic bridges that cross the Ramble’s streams, and some female bird-watchers report that they have sporadically glimpsed flashers, along with the flycatchers, grosbeaks and warblers that they have come to observe.

      Pat Pollock, a retired teacher who lives on the Upper West Side, was in the Ramble on Thursday, equipped with a sensible sun hat and her high-powered Swarovski binoculars. She had had a successful outing, having seen a Wilson’s warbler, a delicate little yellow bird with a black cap.

      Thanks for reading The Times.
      Subscribe to The Times
      But the attack on the woman the day before made her recall the flasher she had encountered two weeks ago. Ms. Pollock and a friend were birding in the Ramble when they noticed a man 20 feet ahead of them on the path. He unzipped his pants.

      “He apparently wanted us to see him, but we quickly left,” she said. “I wasn’t putting my binoculars on him, believe me.”

      With the fall migration in full swing, this is an especially popular time for birders in the park; a diligent one could see 50 to 60 species in one day.

      ImagePolice officers near the site where a 73-year-old woman was raped and beaten near Strawberry Fields in Central Park on Wednesday. The victim is a bird-watcher who visits the park daily.
      Police officers near the site where a 73-year-old woman was raped and beaten near Strawberry Fields in Central Park on Wednesday. The victim is a bird-watcher who visits the park daily.Credit…Robert Caplin for The New York Times
      In designing the Ramble, Olmsted said he had arranged the paths and bridges, outcrops and thickets to “create a degree of obscurity not absolutely impenetrable, but sufficient to affect the imagination with a sense of mystery.” Little did he know why future generations might find that landscape alluring.

      Bird-watchers and hikers recalled a time when they would happen upon men engaging in furtive sex, in broad daylight, behind boulders and off the wooded paths, especially at the Point, a small peninsula that juts into the Lake.

      “That was a well-known hangout, and probably still is,” said Marie Winn, a Central Park regular for the past 50 years who has written extensively about the park and the bird-watching community. “Most bird-watchers, especially the female ones, used to feel safe there because these guys had no interest in us. I never had a looking-over-my-shoulder feeling there, even at night.”

      Herbert Rosenblum, 76, a resident of the Upper West Side, has been birding in the Ramble for the past 20 years. In the past he has noticed sexual activity during the day, but now he sees only the results of what he suspects are nighttime trysts. Up until several years ago, there was even a shelter fashioned from branches, surrounding an old mattress, in a part of the Ramble known as the Oven. It has since been dismantled.

      “You would see men come in and go out,” he recalled. “You didn’t know what they were doing but you could guess. Now I just see condoms.”

      Web sites still list the Ramble as a hookup location, with one giving it a rating of two and a half stars, though it also cautioned that the area had become less hospitable. “Warning!” a post about the Ramble read. “I was there last night and the plainclothes cops had a couple of guys in handcuffs who were out on the peninsula.”

      Crime in the park has fallen steeply in recent decades, as it has throughout New York City. In 2011, according to the police, there were 18 robberies reported in the park, down from 731 in 1981.

      In a news conference on Thursday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that the attack was “a terrible thing.”

      “But,” he continued, “I think the overall history of safety in the park says it’s one of the safest places you can be.”

      But a man who was in the Ramble on Thursday said that some things about the area had not changed, and that there were still couples, both gay and straight, who have sex on the shelves of the giant granite boulders that nestle in the foliage. “It’s always been a place where you could come and find people like you,” said the man, 64, who declined to give his full name. “It is what it is and it has always been. It’s a community.”

        1. Cindy Bragg – it is just as likely that Amy was there for a hook-up. He is noted as a bird watcher, she is not.

          1. Paul ….who knows…..but it would certainly explain her fear of him …..and the fact he kept filming her.
            Men don’t understand that kind of fear that some women have. But, it ‘s very real, my friend.

            1. Cindy Bragg – okay, I am a black male alone with a hysterical white female. Do I pull out my phone and record it to protect myself? Yes or no?

              1. Paul….Probably yes?? I don’t know the mind of an Affirmative Action black gay male….I know more about scared irrational women..When he told her to take the dog elsewhere she said it was “too dangerous ” and the dog runs were closed. She was a loose cannon……so he should have cut his losses and left. He could have come back in 10 min and she would have been gone probably. When I encounter someone like that in a public place….I get the hell out of there and return when the coast is clear. He is not very bright, apparently.

              2. I do not care that he pulled out his phone.

                But the event eventually played out. They parted company.
                It was over.
                And that should have been the end of it.

                What is problematic is that he posted it on social media and used it to defame and ruin this woman.

                The fact that he could not let go of this speaks volumes about his character.

                If someone runs a stop sign in front of you do you post the video on the internet, dox them to the world, and then cost them their dog and their job ?

                Whatever apologies were owed in the park

                Christian owes some really big ones now.

                And he is lucky. By his own admission he could be charge with attempted theft.

                  1. If you think that you could not be prosecuted on these facts try repeating them yourself.

                    So long as this was “he said she said” prosecution was unlikely. But he posted about this confirming the important facts. Essentially he confessed.

                1. John Say – Christian’s sister Melody is the one who posted for everyone to see. I think Christian just posted it for a select few.

        2. ‘Birding my aunt fanny! Now we know the real reason that Christian Cooper was.in the “Ramble”.’ -Cindy Bragg

          What a surprise (not) that Cindy Bragg would make such a leap.

            1. Only in your dreams, Cindy. I have no interest in you at all.

              (For those who aren’t aware: Cindy’s a little “off.”

                1. No one is stalking you, Cindy Bragg. We’re in the comments section of a blog.

                  Now go get yourself a life, little girl.

                    1. Well, we know that Cindy’s not the brightest bulb, so I’m not surprised that it would make her month, as you say.

                    2. Anonymous – when I was 18 I went to South Dakota where I could drink 3.2 beer legally. They had a guy checking IDs at the door and just before I handed mine over a couple of women who were obviously in the 40s were asked for their ID. So, I asked him why he was asking them for ID when they were obviously overage, he said he did to make them feel good about themselves. 😉

  9. Pick up the flag. Second down.

    “No harm, no foul!”

    – Chick Hearn

  10. It is my opinion that, exclusive of any contradictory case law in New York for which I am not familiar, there is probable cause to charge Ms. Cooper under https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/240.50, based upon what evidence was presented in the video only. If there was an actual threat made by Mr. Cooper prior to this video, I have no information either way. But for the sake of discussion for this article, I believe she broke the law. Whether or not it meets a threshhold to prosecutorial discretion is another matter.

    I would go further to say that she had malicious intent as evidenced by her prior statement demanding Mr. Cooper stop filming her, which being in a public venue he has a right to do so, she said that she would call the cops and report that he threatened her life which could invoke a felony prosecution against him. That to me implies a coercive act.

    If she had not instead said that she would report him for harassing her her statement to police might have given her qualified immunity of sorts since the law tends to favor people reporting issues that might be shown to be legally debatable in a light most favorable to the reporting party. But when she said a clearly false statement, implying a felony harassment/threat to kill prior calling 911 she will lose any qualified immunity, if that state has such a provision.

    As to the suggestion of racism, There is not enough evidence to support that conclusively. If she used “African-American” as a means of identification, and this is supported by her includind the element “wearing a bicycle helmet”, it would be a plausable defense. If this was used as a potential sentencing enhancement, I do not see this being successfully argued by the state. The nexus of the hate crime element of this would rest on whether or not the suspect intended to commit a crime against a person by his/her perceived membership in a protected class.

    Moving to the issue of her termination with Templeton, as I mentioned in a comment regarding the executive who slapped the young child while crying in an airline flight last year or so, persons having executive status of large corporations are by effectively the face of the company and \actions drawing unwanted attention to the company affect it directly. This is not an entry level employee, who is nameless on the public forum and associated with the operation of the business. Her conduct is unbecoming of a corporate executive just based upon her actions.

    Yet the realpolitik of the matter is that a corporation must denouce anything perceived, rightly or not, to be racist or else face a significant backlash in the public arena, that would hurt the company’s goodwill and finances. I believe they were justified in sacking her given her position, but callign this a racist issue was a stretch. They could have canned her for her actions alone without the racism implication but the company probably had to make pre-emptive strike against the racism charge by making the statement it did. Of course there could have been more information said before the video that coudl have proved a racist approach, but again I have no information either way.

    1. Darren – I think she could sue Franklin Templeton for wrongful termination and get a favorable settlement, due to the company’s public statement that they fired her due to her “racist” actions. FT has gone well beyond simply parting ways with her; they labeled her a racist and have therefore severely damaged her future employment prospects. This was not only unnecessary, but surprising in that there is insufficient evidence that her actions were based on the guy’s race. I think she would have flipped out on a white guy under similar circumstances. Most employers have some sort of “conduct unbecoming” provision that can be used to terminate an employee who places the employer in a bad light. FR appears to have reacted to the Twitter Mob when they should have been listening to their lawyers.

      1. Tin wrote:

        “I think she could sue Franklin Templeton for wrongful termination and get a favorable settlement, due to the company’s public statement that they fired her due to her “racist” actions. FT has gone well beyond simply parting ways with her; they labeled her a racist and have therefore severely damaged her future employment prospects. This was not only unnecessary, but surprising in that there is insufficient evidence that her actions were based on the guy’s race.”
        That is certainly a possibility, I agree with what you propose.Whether it in the end will be successful or not I am not sure but I do believe if she does file an action it will survive a summary judgment motion made by FT.

        1. There is also a possible defamation claim – against MANY people – including Chrisitan.

          His actions certainly constitute “publishing” and she certainly is not a public figure.

            1. Depends on what has been written.

              The Audubon missive does not identify Ms. Cooper directly but strongly implies the incident was racist,
              Her employer is closer to overt int he same assertions – as are several media outlets.

              The video itself is not defamatory – it is her speaking for her self – though your interpretation of it can be defamation.

              But Mr. Cooper’s characterizations of the encounter on his FB page could easily be defamatory.

              Ms. Cooper is a private citizen not a public figure. She did ask for this and specifically asked Mr. Cooper not to video her.

              I am not clear what the law is there, but he went a step further when he published the video, there is near certain a claim their – probably a federal claim.

            1. “John Say – why are you so vested in this woman’s case?”

              I am not. But I am having fun wigging out watching assorted progressives eating themselves.

              As I said before – this is “Blue on Blue”

              Without knowing anything at all but the video, any sane person would conclude:

              “This is Central Park in Manhattan”. The odds of Christian Cooper encountering the only female KKK member in Manhattan are zero.

              If you say that Amy is racist, you are essentially saying that pretty much every white woman who takes a dog for a walk alone and is concerned by the unwanted attention of a man who happens to be black is racist.

              If you want to beleive 3/4 of the women in NYC are racist – that is your business.
              But you have made racism into triviality.

              Frankly I think this controversy is disasterous for the left.

              We have an election coming up, and this issue sends the same message women – particulrly white women that Stokely Charmichal said in the 60’s.

              “The only place for a women in the movement is on her back”.

              You are saying that women alone being afraid of unwanted approaches by men are inherently racist.

              Go ahead. Push that real hard. That is going to fly really well with women.

              Do black men have reason to fear from threats to involve the police – absolutely.

              There is zero question that Amy’s call the the police was a threat to Christian that had atleast some risk of ending badly for him.

              This entire incident brings to the fore the horrible injustice of the central park five.
              But at the same time. It was not Ms. Miele who falsely persecuted a group of blacks teens. It was the NYPD.
              And we should not forget that Ms. Miele was brutally raped in Central Park.

              So do women walking their dogs alone have reason to feel threatened by the unwanted approach of men – whether they are black or hispanic or white ?

              Is that fear heightened when that person actually threatens them – whether that threat is specific or not ?

              Most women who are out alone with dogs view that dog as protection.
              Even attempting to befriend that dog without their permission is a threat to their safety.

              What we have here is a conflict between different group fears.

              Christian escalated rather than descalated.

              Regardless, if you really beleive this is a good example of minorty oppression – I think you are sending a really bad message to women accross the country.

              1. John Say – I am tired of tilting at that windmill. So, I offer you a new one. It appears that Amy is/was a liberal in good standing before this incident. However, she is now being labeled as a MAGA hat wearing NAZI on at least one Twitter feed.

                  1. Shakdi D – This has been fact checked by CNN and the Washington Post as accurate. 😉

                1. Of course, are the parallel’s between progressivism and the socialism of the PRC and USSR opaque to you ?

                  I beleive Ayn Rand’s “We the Living” addresses some of this too.

                  It is a requirement of progressivism that core values essentially do not exist – that the dogma must be subject to change to keep aloclytes in heel, consantly in fear of heresey and being outcast.

                  Amy has had to engage in public self criticism – she might as well hang a placard listing her sins and parade arround in public as they did in the PRC

                  She must renounce her backsliding, her “capitalist roader” sentiments,

                  For the moment race is one of the core dogma’s of progressives.
                  But given sufficient time, it will be minorities under the leftist boot for thought crime against whatever the principle dogma of the moment is.

                  1. John Say – well, the PRC clearly has a problem with racism, however I don’t think they are doing as much of the public shaming as they used to.

                    1. “John Say – well, the PRC clearly has a problem with racism, however I don’t think they are doing as much of the public shaming as they used to.”

                      Really ? Are you ignorant of China ?

                      they have taken public shaming to a new level.
                      They have incorporated technology. They actually keep track of your social credit score.

      2. The woman is a victim, always the victim.

        FT has no chance and will settle.

        Next case.

        “COVID-19 Decimates Mankind”

        Women and minorities hit the hardest.

    2. I think you are probably right on most of that but I disagree with your conclusion there is no racism because she as you point out was using it as “identification” and you highlight her mentioning the bicycle helmet. Yes that’s true if you ignore the use of the term
      “African American man” in her original warning to him. Sure she could claim identification when she was talking to dispatch. But you’d be hard pressed to argue she was using it as identification when she made her original threat to him. You would not be able to argue that she was identifying him to himself. He knows he’s African American I am sure. I think most reasonable people could conclude he knows he’s African American. So identification falls flat in her original threat to him. She tells him in no uncertain terms she will call the Police and tell them there is an “African American man threatening her”. She doesn’t mention any bicycle helmet then, nor is she providing him identification of himself. She leverages that term for a specific reason and only one plausible reason exists.

      1. I see where you are coming from on this, yet I do not believe it is provable to an sufficient evidenciary standard that her motivation to commit a crime against him was spurred by her perception he belonged to a member of a protected class. Surely she believed he was of that group, but to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his being African-American elicited her to commit a crime against him would be a challenge for the state in a criminal action. In most states I am familiar the state has to prove in a hate crime prosecution that the person being in the protected class somehow induced the mens rea in the accused to commit a crime against this victim. As an illustration, it is not a provable hate crime because a suspect attacked a man because he say slept with his wife and he was violently jealous…that the victim was Asian or handicapped or a Methodist does not mean that it is a prosecutable hate crime. Now if instead the suspect said “I beat him up because no Asian man is going to look at my wife so I bludgeoned him”, a hate crime prosecution can be of a greater possibility.

        Perhaps in a civil case the standard will be different. But whether or not this is actionable is another story. I do not know if Mr. Collins suffered actual damage in this incident since he was not prosecuted or arrested and he did choose to film her and engage in conversation with her on his own volition.

        However the underlying base of this entire affair is what I refer to as “Stupid Stuff” mushrooming into a huge debacle. If instead either one of these folks could have just left the park, smoked a joint and ate a bag of crisps….everyone would have been better off.

        Mr Cooper: If someone has their dog off a leach, who cares???
        Ms. Cooper: You’re too old to act like a snowflake. It is a serious career limiting move for an executive. Now your six figure salary went to the dogs and your resume is radioactive.

        Avoid engaging in Stupid Stuff, there are usually no winners in these dramas.

        1. What battle in this war should everyone concern themselves with.

          I know this war others I don’t think so. The topics here, sadly, on this blog seem little more then supermarket tabloid stuff.

          Of just a few real life issues just check out the 1st 30 or 40 minutes of this video.

          There’s been months worth of real news press has posted. This is just a very small piece of real news.


        2. The post to social media that caused this to be a world gripping story was Mr. Cooper’s.

          Though we must all be incredibly bored to give a crap.

          Mr. Cooper can not let go of a minor conflict in the park where there is plenty of mistakes made by all parties. and that should have just resulted in each going about their own lives.

          Instead he is doxed someone he briefly confronted in the park.
          He fails to grasp that his own behavior was perceivable as threatening regardless of what his intent was.
          He has accused her of racism, cost her her dog, cost her her job.

          Because he can not let go.

          I am fine with charging him with attempted theft of the dog under the circumstances.

          But I would have let that go if he had just shut up.

          1. John Say – I have said this before and you have avoided it, where did Christian say he was going to steal the dog? Where did Amy say that Christian was going to steal her dog?

            1. If I come into a jewelery story and walk out with a rung from a counter – am I innocent if I never explicitly say “I am going to steal this ring” ?

              I linked to Chrisitan’s post on his FB page. You can read his own word’s.

              Whether Christian’s actions constitute an attempted theft requires interpreting everything most favorably to him.

              But whether Amy’s response is reasonable requires interpreting Christian’s words and conduct in the manner most favorable to her.

              Christian’s remarks were a threat. They were not a specific threat, but they were absolutely a threat.

              You and I can both speculate on what the specific threat was, though it is pretty clear that he intended and tried to take possession of the dog. That is attempted theft.
              From his own words.

              If some stranger in the park offered a lollipop to your 3yr old to get them to leave their mother, against the wishes of the mother – would you consider that attempted kidnapping ?

              BTW people get convicted of kidnapping for enticing children to go with them all the time.
              The only difference here is that a dog is property, not a person, so the crime is theft not kidnapping. “dognapping” or attempted dog napping is a crime – THEFT.

              This is not complex.

              ARe you honestly claiming based on Christian’s own statements about the dog that he did not try to lure it away from its owner ?

  11. Does anyone know what time of day it was? My understanding is that dogs are allowed to be off-leash for a few hours in the morning.

    Still, she should have just leashed the dog and walked away.

    I hope the dog finds a better home.

    1. He tried to treat her dog. Further the dog was off the leash and she had to regain control.

      Everybody behaved stupid.

      Do you think that Mr. Cooper would have made an issue with Mike Tyson with a doberman ?

      Everyone should have walked away.

      But even when they did not.
      This is a tiny thing.

      Alot of people must be incredibly bored to think this is consequential.

  12. the twitter mob has a hashtag demonizing the quirky lady with the dog as a racist. she has gained her moment of fame. no matter that she would hardly qualify as a racist by any historical standards. twitter has no standards. story #2 in twitter is that trump should be banned. twitter is total garbage. sell twitter short, its days are numbered

    1. “twitter is total garbage”

      And yet Trump can’t stop tweeting.

      “Twitter labels Trump’s tweets with a fact-check for the first time”


      SAN FRANCISCO – Twitter on Tuesday slapped a fact-check label on President Donald Trump’s tweets for the first time, a response to long-standing criticism that the company is too hands-off when it comes to policing misinformation and falsehoods from world leaders.

      The move, which escalates tensions between Washington and Silicon Valley in an election year, was made in response to two Trump tweets over the past 24 hours. The tweets falsely claimed that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. Twitter’s label says, “Get the facts about mail-in ballots,” and redirects users to news articles about Trump’s unsubstantiated claim.

  13. HE didn’t call the cops on HER, so your comment is off-base factually. HE wasn’t acting as a cop–just politely requesting that she comply with the leash ordinance.

    Just today, I went to plant flowers in the in-ground planter at my office door (offices are like condos, each with separate front and back doors). There were dog turds in my flower box that I had to clean up. Dogs carry worms and other pests, and there is a wooded area across the parking lot for the dog to use, so there isn’t any excuse for this. Even if you’re going to let your dog crap in someone else’s planter box, the very least you could do is clean up after it. Better still, leave your dog at home, or walk it somewhere besides where others plant flowers.

    1. “HE didn’t call the cops on HER, so your comment is off-base factually. HE wasn’t acting as a cop–just politely requesting that she comply with the leash ordinance.”
      Quo warranto? Authorized by Marlin Perkins? No, he should have just called the cops and the we’d be spared this harrowing tale of nothingness.

      1. Quo warranto… now that was funny!

        I might add he took exception to this executive’s tirade against him and served her with a “wit” of “Quid Pro Quo Warranto”.

    2. Yup, nature is dangerous. And everything is about you.

      BTW dog pooh is ferilizer and unless you are handling or eating their turds anything dangerous in them will die quickly.

      Yes, dog owners should clean up when their pets deficate on private property – because it is NOT THEIR PROPERTY. And we are obligated to respect the property rights of others.

      But this is just not the challenger disaster. There is no reason this should be news.
      There is no sane reason people should be paying attention to this video.

      I HOPE it because people are locked up and bored senseless.

      Get a life, do something constructive – take your dog for a walk and let them poop on someone else’s flower bed.

      1. ttps://fortune.com/2020/05/26/amy-cooper-video-central-park-ramble-christian-cooper/

        (John Say is probably a white guy. Just a wild guess.)

        1. Your the one keeps trying to make this about race.

          I do not give a crap what Color Mr. or Ms. Cooper are.

          That is completely irrelevant. If you do not understand that – YOU are the problem – and YOU are the racist.

  14. 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”


    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

  15. I do not understand the fuss.

    Merely describing a person of color as a person of color is NOT racism.
    It is no different than saying a man in a blue shirt.

    Christian Cooper might want to get a grip – nature includes Dogs and other preditors.

    It might be a violation of nanny state nonsense to have dogs off leashes in parks, and it is separately reasonable to presume that dog owners are responsible for the harmful actions of their dogs – like biting people, not disturbing birds.

    Christian Cooper approaching another person’s dog with a treat without their permission is an even more serious issue. It is an absolute threat. There is no predicting how the dog will react and even the best case scenario is actually a threat to Amy Cooper. Her dog is a form of personal protection.

    Regardless, you do not approach another persons dog without permission.

    In the end we have two people who seem to think that Central park is their personal fifedom. The good news is that nothing more truly bad actually happened.

    Why anyone thinks this is consequential is itself disturbing.

    1. John Say – her dog is chattel. He could shot the dog and only have to pay for the price of the dog and firing a gun in the city limits. However, he could claim the dog attacked him and he feared for his life.

      1. Paul– Mostly right, but New York! Somebody was charged with animal cruelty for killing a rat with a stick a few years ago.

          1. Paul– I think they may have. Someone in the health department said they kind of wanted people to exterminate rats but I am not sure that helped. It has been awhile and I don’t remember the outcome. Crazy it should ever have been an issue.

              1. Paul– Yes, vermin, Bubonic Plague carriers and other nice stuff. They should be killed. I checked. It was in 1994 and the man was charged with cruelty to animals but somebody sane stepped in and charges were dropped.

                1. Young – sounds like Diogenes with his lamp looking for a sane man to save the world. 😉

                  1. In New York it might be safer to be a rat than a patient in a nursing home. Someone might be in trouble for killing a rat.

                    1. Young – I did hear that the rats are going to come back with a vengeance, since they have not been regularly feed in some time.

                    2. They will be okay so long as they don’t go to one of Cuomo’s nursing homes…open season there.

      2. And you are assuming facts not in evidence.

        He could shoot a dog that attacks him without basis.

        But he approached the dog and tried to give it a treat.
        That is a huge no no if you do not know the dog, and have the dog and the owners permission. My lab would lick you and become your best friend if you did that.
        My shepard mix would rip your arm off.

        You can claim a dog attacked you all you want. IF True or if you can convince people it is true you might get away with it.

        But ultimately facts matter.
        I personally do not like leash laws. BUT the owner of the dog is still responsible for the dog leashed or not.

        At the same time wise people do not approach strange dogs.

        I am extremely disturbed by the fact that Christian cooper had dog treats with him.
        There are possible innocent explanations, but there are also some criminal ones.

        Regardless, you approach my dog, leashed or not, without my permission and the dogs permission with or without a treat and you are a threat. Black, white I do not care.

        Digs have many roles – one of those is protector. attempting to befreind my dog without my permission is like trying to take a legal gun from me.
        It is a THREAT.

        You can argue whatever you wish about chattel and whether Christian could kill the dog.
        It does not alter the fact that his actions increased consideration of him as a threat.

        I am not arguing that Amy handled things perfectly – she did not.

        But lets not pretend that either parties behavior was perfect.

        The please appear to have separated the two and sent them on their way without doing anything further – wise and appropriate choice.

        This has cost Amy her job and he dog and permanently labeled her as a racist – like Central Park in NY is just full of neo nazi young white women.

        Anyone want odds on her being a Biden or Sanders supporter ?

        Regardless, the consequences are radically disproportionate for her.

        Meanwhile Christian’s conduct was far from perfect, He has a warped view of nature – a clue, nature includes dogs and humans as well as birds. Digs chasing birds is NATURE. When you try to thwart the natural order – whether the law supports you or not, you are in an uphill battle, and the burden to justify your behavior is on you.

        Regardless, this appears to me to be two idiot new yorker’s with chips on their shoulders making “much ado about nothing”.

        So the whole nation is now debating whether this is some example of pervasive systemic racism.

        Really ? Go the the Lynching Museum in Miontgomery Alabama, you can see real examples of racism.

        If two adults being a bit overly trepedations and too easily taking offense in central park is this big a deal – we are in serious trouble.

        1. John Say – I periodically walk my dog in a birding park. All dogs are on leashes. It is the height of rudeness not to have you dog on a leash. People dance around trying to make sure the bigger dogs don’t eat the smaller dogs as the pass in different directions. We have strictly enforced runs for dogs off the lease that includes lakes for them to swim in.

          1. “It is the height of rudeness not to have you dog on a leash.:”
            Assuming that is the park rules under the circumstances – I fully agree.
            Though there appears to be some debate over the leash rules for dogs in central park.

            Regardless, owners should have their dogs on leashes when they are likely to encounter other dogs or humans.

            But if this is about rudeness – why is this video viral, why is Turley posting ?

            Some woman was rude in central park is just not national news.

            nor am I defending every aspect of this womans behavior.
            She made lots of mistakes.
            But this is neither some huge deal nor something totally lopsided.

            Assuming what other posters have claimed about Chrisitans FB posts about this – he was threatening to steal her dog. That completely inverts everything.

            You do not get to steal another persons dog, just because they made the mistake of having it off a leash. She was present at the time – so there is little question that he was interfering with her rights to her dog.

            But even if the posts about his FB posts are wrong.

            He approached an attempted to lure her dog with treats in her presence without her permission. That might be a crime. Even if it is not, it is more than RUDE. It is WRONG, and it is dangerous, it is dangerous not merely to him, but also to the woman and the dog. If something goes wrong, he gets bit, the dog may get killed and she may have large medical bills. All because of his FREE actions.

            if I jay walk that does not entitle you to gun it and run me down.

            She made mistakes, they do not justifies or excuse his.

            The only thing I see in this whole thing that is not “everyone walk away” and forget this, is the claim that he may have been trying to take her dog.
            Probably we should walk away from that too.
            But unlike her conduct, that dances very near being an attempted crime.

              1. He wasn’t going to steal the dog. Most people get it, but not guys like John Say. I’d say that “it’s a reasonable wager” (TIA’s line) that Say isn’t a lawyer.

                1. “He wasn’t going to steal the dog. Most people get it”

                  He made clear that he intended to gain control of the dog and that she would not like the outcome.

                  “but not guys like John Say. I’d say that “it’s a reasonable wager” (TIA’s line) that Say isn’t a lawyer.”

                  My wife is former federal court clerk, former commonwealth court clerk, and an appellate public defender for two decades. She has plenty of clients who have done far less than Mr. Cooper threatened.

                  Put simply plenty of people are in jail for less.

                  Regardless, if you are so certain I am wrong – try doing as Mr. Cooper did yourself.

                  You can test this with the police, a prosecutor, a judge and jury.

                  Put simply – Ms. Cooper at worst committed an inconsequential summary offence.

                  Whether Mr. Cooper’s actions constitute a felony, ultimately depends on the discretion of police and prosecutors, and the judgement of judges and juries.

                  I would personally prefer not to be either cooper, but given a choice between a fine for a leashless dog and the possibility of a felony prosecution – I would choose the former.

                  Your “most people get it” assertion is a question of intention.
                  I would prefer not to have others guessing about my intentions.

                  Regardless Mr. Coopers phrasing of his threat made it clear Ms. Cooper would not like it if he lured the dog. That is a “bad fact”. It is also a threat. Maybe not a specific one, but still a threat. Far more than sufficient for her to call 911 and claim to have been threatened.

                  I would further note that Mr. Cooper at no time faced any consequence that was not from law enforcement and a direct consequence of his own actions.

                  While Mr. Cooper specifically threatened Ms. Cooper with a bad outcome of his own devising – not with the law enforcement consequences of her actions.

                  That is called a THREAT.

                  We constantly here from the left that people should not take the law into their own hands, that individuals should not engage in vigilante actions.

                  Taking the left at its word – Mr. Cooper had one legitimate option – call law enforcement to deal with a dog off its leash.

                  He incontrovertably chose to take the law into his own hands.

                  Every person countering my claims has openly admitted exactly that.

                  Argument after argument is somekind of justification for Mr. Cooper personally assuming the role of law enforcement.

                  If you beleive that Ahmaud Arbery’s was a victim – then so was Ms. Cooper,
                  If you beleive that the McMicheals were not free to take the law into their own hands, then neither was Mr. Cooper.

                  Otherwise it looks like your idea of the rule of law is “whatever the facts, blacks are always the victims”.

                  Maybe you should focus on facts, not race.

                  Read all the posts here, read the audubon society, listen to Mr. Cooper, listen to Ms. Cooper’s “self criticism”, read her firms statement, read the media.

                  The facts are irrelevant. What mattered was that Mr. Cooper was black and Ms. Cooper was a white woman.

                  It was like the left was trying to undo the central park jogger case forgetting the fact that Ms. Meili was brutally assualted and raped, and Ms Cooper had to pay because some black teens were falsely prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned

                  I would note that neither of these events occured in Montgomery Alabama, but in Manhattan

                  Are we to beleive that the pinnacle of US racism is white women in central park ?

              2. When you take possession of something that is not yours – even for a short period over the objections of the owner – that is theft.

                If you think that is not true – go into a jewelry story take a ring from the counter and walk out – see it you are prosecuted.

                Neither the dog nor the ring needs to be in the hands of the owner when you take it.
                All you have to do is take possession without permission.

Leave a Reply