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. What has been left out of this article, is what triggered Amy in the first place. Quoting Christian in his first interview with Erin Burnett on CNN’s Outfront, “Before I started the video recording, I said: ‘I’m going to do something that you are not going to like, and you cannot stop me.’ ” Meaning that he was going to offer the dog a doggie treat. The purpose of that is, that dog owners typically put their dogs on a leash and leave the area, as they assume that the treat will harm the dog. If he actually said it like that, Amy might, in the heat of the moment, have mis-construed this as a threat to harm her personally.

    1. All the more reason for Amy to leash the dog and make a beeline out of the Ramble. If she had truly been afraid, she would have retreated, but she approached CC — angry that he was recording their encounter…

      Read the article posted at 9 am yesterday.

      1. “All the more reason for Amy to leash the dog”
        That is what she did.
        ” and make a beeline out of the Ramble. ”
        Everyone should have retreated.

        “If she had truly been afraid, she would have retreated, but she approached CC — angry that he was recording their encounter…”
        Amy should have retreated. People under stress do not always make the best decisions.
        Rayshard Brooks Should not have fought with police officers, He should not have taken one officers taser, he should not have fled, he should not have fired the taser at an officer. The officer should not have shot back.

        Brooks is now dead. That should not have happened.

        Almost all the time we can find things people should have done differently to get a better outcome

        The question is not did Amy or Christian do everything optimally, But what did they do wrong. Was that illegal ? Criminal ?

      2. She apparently left before the police arrived. Does it make any sense at call to call 911 and then take off…?

    2. Christian clearly made a threat. But the threat was not specific. Amy can assume that Christian means harm to her dog or herself. While that may not be the case, the nature of the threat permits that perception.

    1. I guess that means PC left doesn’t care about wife beaters. But we knew that already. Maybe that employee was a card carrying member of the Democrat Party and the woman’s march so he doesn’t have to follow the rules and can beat his wife whenever he wants.

    1. What about her life ?

      I suspect getting the dog back is a mistake for her.

      She is going to be unable to safely walk that dog anywhere ever for a long time.

      She has been doxed and has a bullseye on her back.

      If she was smart she would have taken the red pill and gotten out of NYC and found somewhere else to rebuild her life.

      She is going to have a hard time getting a job in NYC.
      She is going to be a permanent pariah among the circle she used to travel.
      And a target in public.

      That is how those on the left treat those who “sin”

      1. Someone asked Amy to follow the rules and she didn’t like it. She could have leashed her dog and walked away, but she chose phone in a phony threat to the police. Amy made her bed…

        1. Next time you break a park rule, if that results in your murder, I will remind you that you made your bed.

          “but she chose phone in a phony threat to the police.”
          Too many errors to count.

            1. “You’ve got to know when to hold ’em. Know when to fold ’em. Know when to walk away.” -Kenny Rogers

              A smart woman like Amy should of known that it would be best to walk away. Christian Cooper kept his distance. He didn’t advance on her and, in fact, asked HER to keep HER distance. She wanted things her way and wasn’t going to back down. She lost. Too bad, so sad.

              1. No one behaved smart in this.
                People tend not to in conflict.

                Christian threatened her and acted on the threat.

                Everyone should have walked away.

                Christian needs to quit luring dogs before a pitbull takes his hand off.

          1. “Next time you break a park rule, if that results in your murder, I will remind you that you made your bed.”

            I would be dead, so there would be no one to “remind.”

            Amy’s life wasn’t being threatened, of course, but do carry on with your phony-baloney ‘argument.’

            1. Christian made a clear but not specific threat. That meets the reasonable suspicion standard for a threat to ones life.

              Ii am sorry that the law bothers you, but we do not expect people to be bleeding from their eyes before calling 911

              1. The blind — as John Say clearly is — can’t see.

                Amy Cooper wasn’t close to “bleeding from [her] eyes.” If she really felt threatened, she would have turned tail and run.

                1. “Amy Cooper wasn’t close to “bleeding from [her] eyes.” If she really felt threatened, she would have turned tail and run.”

                  Lots of things that she and christian should have done that they didn’t or should not have done that they did.
                  People often make bad choices under stress.

                  The question is not did Amy make wise choices.
                  It is did she break the law.
                  She broke a park rule

                  1. The Libertarian John Say keeps goin’ round and round the mulberry bush with his “rules shmules” shtick.

              2. “John Say says:June 5, 2020 at 4:28 PM
                Christian made a clear but not specific threat. That meets the reasonable suspicion standard for a threat to ones life.”

                What a bunch of hooey.

                She didn’t feel threatened and it’s clear by her actions and phoney 911 ‘pleas.’

                    1. They do, but then you make claims about what she intends, what she is thinking. what she feels. Those are not facts and they are hard if not impossible to discern.

                      Further those other things are not relevant.

                      I do not especially think Amy is a good person, Christian is not exmplary either.
                      Both of them made lots of mistakes in a confrontation.
                      That BTW is common, few act perfectly under stress.

                      But they did what they did, and your speculation beyond that is pretty irrelevant.

      2. If Amy is a leftist she likely will be able to redeem her personal life. All she has to do is prey. If Glenn Beck were still in NYC she could go to the park and start a raucos insulting Glenn Beck’s very young children. If a large enough crowd gathered and she got her name mentioned enough she could become an icon of the left.

        1. The left is incredibly unforgiving of their own.

          Tucker Carlson could take the blue people and become a left wing hero.
          Amy is dead forever.

          1. “The left is incredibly unforgiving of their own.”

            Look at how many from the left have resurrected themselves. Think Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn. It is a matter of where you are in the power structure and which leftist one insulted. Have you heard about the black life that was taken… David Dorn but you are hearing the hero status provided to George Floyd. He shouldn’t have been killed but since then how many people have been killed while creating this new hero and how many are black and likely suporters of the Democrat party?

            1. What’s a scandal is that Dohrn landed an associate’s position at Sidley & Austin ca. 1985, even though she hadn’t cracked a law book in 18 years. Ayers landed a faculty position at the teacher’s college of one of the University of Illinois campuses. Our elites are swine.

              1. The left knew they had to keep connections with the violent ones. Obama and Clintons knew that as well.

            2. Did Ayers and Dorn act in a purportedly racist way ?

              I am not aware that the offended the left. just that they had to keep a low profile for a while to avoid embarassing Obama.

              1. No. We see academia accepting them even though they were involved in killing. They would not have accepted them years ago when they were on the run. Those leftists yesterday easily accept them today.

                1. What you think that mass murder is something the left forgives rather than celebrates ?

                  If you really want to be evicted from the left – do something significant – use the wrong pronoun.

          2. “The left is incredibly unforgiving of their own.”

            Christian Cooper seemed genuine and quite forgiving in his remarks about the incident.

            1. That is why he posted this on the internet.

              That’s what forgiving and kind people do all the time. They record what is going on arround them for their “safety” and then when everything is over and they are sure they are safe – they put it onto FB, dox the other person, add there own version which does nto make them look good and then push it to twitter in the hopes it will go viral.

              How kind.

              You claimed to be really good at reading peoples minds from their actions.

              Get out your ouija board and tells us what Chritians thoughts and intentions were.

  2. Amy could have gotten indirectly been responsible for killing Christian. Suppose there was a cop very nearby and he appeared in seconds, thought Christian reached for a gun, boom, another dead innocent black guy.

    1. Suppose your hair flew away off your head and flapped it’s way to the Mayor of DC and strangled him to death, then flew back home and landed and you covered it up.

    2. There is no indirect responsibility when there is an actor with free will in the chain.

      If a police officer killed Christian, he would be responsible.

      The cigar shop that reported George Floyd was not responsible for his death.
      Nor is the officer exonerated because their report was correct.

    1. Anonymous, I know how difficult it is for you to think more than one level deep. The video is not the only thing that provides us insight. You also don’t seem to understand what the meaning of the word “likely” is.

      Ask yourself, is there evidence that Christian did something similar before? Then read everything that has been said and you will find there is an admission that this appears not to have been the first time.

      Look in a mirror and take note of the word STUPID written across your forehead. It’s there for a reason.

    2. Read what Christian posted on FB.

      Allan’s conclusions are reasonable understanding of Christians own remarks.

      1. Post what Christian posted on FB. Display Christian’s comments, here, so that everyone can decide if “Allan’s conclusions are reasonable understanding [sic] of Christian’s own remarks.” Prove to us that it is “likely” that Christian was looking for “a victim,” as Allan says — as if he’s a predator, when he isn’t.

        1. “if he’s a predator,”

          I didn’t call him a predator. A lot of people like to get even instead of solving the problem. You are one of them, but you lie and can’t even paraphrase what was said.

          Both individuals acted poorly. Neither should have their lives damaged or enhanced over this event. Neither is a predator, but Christians actions ***may*** have been premeditated. Your stupidity is loud and clear everytime you speak.

          1. “…he was likely looking for a victim.” –Allan’s words about Christian

            Allan said that.

            1. A shlemiel can be a victim yet a schlemiel is not a predator. A target or a mark can be the next person’s victim even in comedy. That word means a lot of things but I guess you are too stupid to realize that. There are a lot of words that mean the same as Stupid but that is a word I think you can understand.

              The full quote:
              “From the video and what we have seen Christian’s act likely was premeditated and he was likely looking for a victim. Would he have done the same thing to three big men with baseball bats? I doubt it because they could over power him. I think Christian could recognize that Amy was in comparison physically powerless so he could have been very happy to choose Amy as a target.”

              1. Amy apparently committed 3 crimes on video: unleashed dog, dog abuse/choking, and making a false police report. AFAIK Christian committed no known crimes.

                Being prepared for abusive criminal dog owners (loose dogs kill innocent birds for fun/not to eat, and ruin plant growth) with dog treats is not a crime.

                1. All wrong. Oh well, you’re here late. Read 1,000 comments and then, you’ll still be wrong.

                  1. Because some rando person — in this case Sakdi D — says so. Now, I’m laughing.

                    Amy Cooper was in violation of the rules of the Ramble. All she had to do was leash her flippin’ dog and walk away. Done.

                    1. “Amy Cooper was in violation of the rules of the Ramble. All she had to do was leash her flippin’ dog and walk away. Done.”

                      True, George Floyd was passing a conterfeit $20
                      does that mean ofc. Chauvin’s actions are justified ?

                      If Amy had leashed her dog – nothing further would have happened.
                      If George had not passed a bogus $20 – nothing further would have happened.

                      That alters not one iota, that Chritian and Chauvin are responsible for their responses to the acts of Amy and George.

                    2. Good job JS, cram it down those libturds throats.
                      “All he had to do was not pass a counterfeit $20”

                      Their heads just exploded. They need some drugs, and a wall to knock their noggin against… they must delete the data.

                    3. Shakdi;

                      I am a liberal – clasical liberal, libertarian. I do not use terms like “libturds”.

                      I also try to not insult the people I am debating – though it is hard as progressives think facts, logic, reason demonstrating they are wrong is ad hominem.

                      Just to be clear – George Floyd did not asked to be murdered by passing a counterfeit $20
                      Andy more than Amy Cooper asked to be threatened because she broke a rule.
                      They are each respononsible for their actual conduct.
                      Not everything that followed.

                      That point cuts both ways.

                      I do not support the police murdering criminals, not even violent ones.
                      They have the right to use deadly force in self defense and defense of others.
                      When they take a person into custody that person can no longer take care of themselves.
                      Even if Floyd had health problems – a heart attack, a drug overdose that resulted in his death. Even if he would have died on his own but for the arrest, the moment the police handcuffed him – they took from him responsibility for his health and placed it on themselves. they failed and he died.

                      All chains of causation are broken by the volitional acts of others.

                      If Amy’s 911 call results in Nazi police paratroopers, unless they are robots under Amy’s control, what they subsequently do to George is THEIR fault.

                      Just as ofc. Chauvin is responsible for Mr. Floyd, not the store owner, not even Floyd himself.

                      Floyd is responsible for passing a bad $20, Amy is responsible for breaking a park rule.

                2. “Amy apparently committed 3 crimes on video: ”

                  Though I believe Amy violated the leash law the video doesn’t show her losing control of her dog. As you apparently recognize on the video she had him by his collar and that would satisfy the element of control.

                  Dog abuse: She was restraining the dog. Her abilities to manage her dog are atrocious. She should have controlled him with the leash. As has been said by others many dog owners are terrible at restraining their dog which can lead to the appearance of choking.

                  “making a false police report.” She was stupid, but I don’t think she met the elements necessary to prove she made a false police report unless you employ a mind reader to read her mind. She appeared emotionally out of control.

                  Christian likes birds. That is good but did he carry that likeing too far? From multiple sources it appears that Christian may have been doing the same thing over and over again with other dog owners that had unleashed dogs and the pet food or whatever was being used to lure the dog and force the owner to put the dog on the leash. If that is true then what he did was premeditated. Intentionally or not was looking for confrontation.

                  Both of them were jerks. I don’t approve of either types of actions. I am sure everyone on this blog has been a jerk at times myself include so understand that is part of life. The point is that one should move away from conflict which can lead to violence. He did not satisfy his goal as unleashed dogs will continue to be in the bramble.

                3. None of these are crimes.
                  Also the video has none of them on it.

                  The very actions you call dog abuse – aren’t. If you think they are you have never owned a dog or had a toddler. Further what you are calling abuse is her controlling her dog – as required by law. There is no instance on the video she is violating the dog law.

                  Finally he has reasonable suspicion necescary for the 911 call and her words – that is a very low bar and she meets it.

                4. “loose dogs kill innocent birds for fun/not to eat, and ruin plant growth”
                  Yes dogs in nature act as animals in nature.

                  Any animal that does not have free will can not be either innocent or guilty.

                  In nature birds are killed as are plants.

                  Hakkuna Mattata

                  Luring a strange dog in the presence of its owner without the owners permission is a crime. A misdemeanor.

                    1. Cite already provided, Search the comments for larceny.
                      I even cited the NY statute.

                      You may not deprive an owner of control of their property.

                    2. “You may not deprive an owner of control of their property.”

                      He didn’t.

            2. If Allan did not – I will.

              With the caveat that is a subjective interpretation of Christians FB posts.
              It is something I can provide evidence for, but not something I can prove beyond a reasonnable doubt. It is probable, not certain

          2. I do not have a problem calling him a preditor.

            That does not mean he was seeking to do something improper.

            I think it is likely he was looking to find people breaking the rules, create conflict and push them into doing as he wished.

            The point is that while he may not have had a detailed plan,
            He had a plan, he was “on the hunt”.
            And he caught Amy.

            It was chance that she was is prey.
            It was not chance that he set a trap;

        2. Follow other comments – they have been linked repeatedly already – including atleast twice by me.
          And they have been quoted.
          Further you can google them.

          Why do you think others are required to prove things that are readily available facts to you.

          If you are insufficiently capabler to follow links read quites or google, I can not help you.

  3. OT: some of our Bloggers openly were in support of Anifa.The rioting we are seeing is a result of not stopping Antifa in its tracks when it was violent. I can’t say that present day violence is due directly to Antifa but I am highly suspicious that the same people involved in Antifa are involved in the present situations.
    Trump to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, wants FBI to pursue members
    National security adviser says presdient wants to FBI to surveil, disrupt and arrest group’s members involved in violence

    President Trump declared Sunday that he will designate the radical liberal group Antifa as a terrorist organization after a week of violent riots across the country.

    “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization,” the president announced in a midday tweet.

    The president’s announcement came after another night of rioting across the country over the death of an African-American man at the hands of Minneapolis police. Cities across the country were consumed by clashes between protesters and police and countless fires and other criminal acts ranging from looting and theft to assault on officers and the use of incendiary devises.

    National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that the rioting in most cities was being instigated by outsiders aligned with Antifa.

    “The reports we’re receiving is that this is Antifa. They’re crossing state lines,” O’Brien said. “And we’ve seen this happen before. We saw it in Portland. We saw it in Seattle. We saw it in Berkeley. So, look, we’ll keep our eyes open for anyone else that wants to take advantage of the situation, whether it’s domestic or foreign.

    “But right now I think the president and Attorney General want — [William] Barr wants to know what the FBI has been doing to surveil, to disrupt, to take down Antifa, to prosecute them,” he added. This isn’t the first time they’re out there and they’re using military-style tactics and traveling around the country to take advantage of these situations and burn down our cities. And that can’t be tolerated.”

    Antifa, which stands for “anti-fascist,” is a movement that lacks official leaders, but encompasses local groups, according to the New York Times. Supporters have said the group’s goals justify the use of violence.

    Some of the group’s tactics include throwing bricks, crowbars, metal chains, water bottles, and balloons filled with urine and feces, according to the Anti- Defamation League.


    1. Through the Obama administration and into the Trump administration we have seen the left constantly talking about the tremendous threat of Right wing Violence.

      As if the KKK is hiding in every lions club, and as if white supremacists were actually conservatives – their not. Nazi;s were socialists and white supremacists are too.

      A few weeks ago the fear was of Armed Trump supporters storming blue governor’s mansions.

      Did they burn buildings ? Did they shoot anyone ? Did they overturn police cars ?

      How much violence and systemic racism have the 12 remaining members of the KKK caused in the US ?

      Look arround right now !

      You will find me at the lead to reign in the powers of the police. I mostly do not give a shit about the claims of Police racism. A small portion of the police force are violent thugs
      who could not do what they do without the majority of the force and their unions turning a blind eye and protecting them. I do not personally think Racism is the driving factor. I think ordinary assholery is the problem.

      Randy Barnet’s “the rise of the warrior cop” is mostly a history of bad policy choices with a few examples of the bad consequences it causes.

      But the fact is you are safer facing the national guard than the police today.

      Right now I do not give a crap if Antifa and the police want to go out back and rumble.

      But leave the rest of us out of it.

      Do not burn your own communities down.
      Do not come to those of others and burn theirs down.

      That is not protest, that is rioting and anarchy.

      If you want protests – play the youtube clips of lock down protestors from a few weeks ago.

      Thousands of people on the streets with AR-15’s and no one is hurt, not a shot is fired, NOTHING – but MSNBC and CNN piss in their pants.

      And now ? MSNBC reporters infront of burning buildings and cars and people engaged in violence – calling it a “protest” ?

      1. how will one man, stand up against a mob? he can’t. even with a knife or bow and arrow or gun a mob can ovewhelm one man.

        this is why liberterianism is a failure and a dead end now. all libertarians who have any brains left better link up with people who value civilization, to defend it against savagery and barbarism.

        1. “this is why liberterianism is a failure and a dead end now.”

          Is there an argument in here ?

          Go to http://isidewith.com.

          I cam out solidly libertarian as expected. But still 71% in agreement with Trump.

          How is that possible ? Because with few exceptions most conservatives and libertarians share the same values. As Reagan said the soul of conservatism is libertarian.

          Are you going to disown Milton Fiedman ? Fredrich Hayek ? J.S. Mill ? Franklin ? Adam Smith ? Locke ? Or myriads of other libertarain or classical liberals ?

          What of supply siders ? What of Rahn ? or Laffler ?

          You seem to think libertarains are anarchists. They are not. They are minarchists.

          There is not the width of a peice of paper between some forms of conservatism and libertarianism.

          Regardless, John Locke’s social contract – pretty solidly libertarian, justifies the use of collective force against individuals who initiate force against others.

          If you are conservative all parts of your ideology that are not gobbledygook, come from libertarians.

          Where do you think the concept of limited govenrment comes from ?

          That is from the tradition of Mill and Smith – not Burke ?

          But even Burkean (or Bucklean) conservitism is lust libertarians with the brakes on – libertarianism in mollases.

          And even that is a libertarian concept – we should not disrupt institutions long established though flawed absent certainty that change is an improvement.

          “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”

          Adam Smith

        2. Kurtz, can you provide an ideology you prefer that excludes libertarian thinking? What is the function of libertarianism? To maximize autonomy, freedom, voluntary association, personal judgement, etc. Don’t be upset by the extremes who carry libertarianism to their deaths. Darwin takes care of those.

          1. Neither conservatism nor progressiveness are actually ideologies.
            Progressivisim is inherently nihlistic.

            The core of conservatism is “go slow”.
            Or as Buckley said
            “Standing athwart the world shouting “Stop””.

            A variety of values and postions get incorporated almost randomly into conservatism.
            Tea Party, supply siders evangelicals. neo-cons, establishment conservatives,

            These have overlapping values, but there is no single collection of values that can be said to define conservatism.

      2. John, I just posted elsewhere part of what I believe is happening.

        As a whole the police at least in NYC are good, well trained police officers. Every organization has it bad apples. In NYC whatever violence occurred for the most part has to be blamed on the administration that is weak and stupid.

        Does anyone really believe that people in poor white areas, black areas, hispanic areas want to burn down the businesses where they or their parents shop? Absolutely Not, but the present administration of NYC doesn’t seem intent on protecting the normal citizen. Detroit seems to have done a good job. I think why Detroit faired well at least in part can be easily explained.

        1. “In NYC whatever violence occurred for the most part has to be blamed on the administration that is weak and stupid.”
          Strike “the most part”.
          This is a factor, one of many causes.
          There are only a few bad apples in the police.
          But “all that is necescary for evil to truimph is good men to be silent”.
          There are serious problems in our police forces. They are just NOT systemic racism.

          “Does anyone really believe that people in poor white areas, black areas, hispanic areas want to burn down the businesses where they or their parents shop? Absolutely Not,”

          Agreed, but pulitzer prize winning authors are writing in NYT that looting is not violence.

          The core problems is ideological.
          A few weeks ago 10,000 armed protesters descended on democratic capitals across the country to protest lockdowns. No looting, no burning, no bashed police cars, no conflict no injury. Why are things different ?

          The first group of protestors only justifies force in response to actual force.
          Initiating violence is antithetical to their core values.

          I have been amazed at the efforts of most BLM chapters to stop violence.

          But progressivism at its core justified easily the collective use of force for laudible ends.
          Violence is not antithetical to the principles of progressivism. The legitimacy of violence is merely a question of perception. BLM is at the moment opposed to violence because they will look bad. There is no Core principle that the use of force requires carefull justification. It is inevitable that a small portion of those in BLM protests will reject the request for non-violence – there is no core principle they are breaking by doing so.

          1. “Agreed, but pulitzer prize winning authors are writing in NYT that looting is not violence.”

            We have the political and elite class that are relatively unaffected by this violence and surprisingly gain more power by it. Our dependence on government has left us disarmed. We need to depend on each other and ourselves for as a group we are much bigger and much more powerful than those violent thugs presently destroying our streets.

            Many of the young out there are looking for a cause and have latched onto the wrong one because of our families are weak. Mom and dad should be out in the streets protesting the death of David Dorn the black retired police officer doing good.

    2. it is antifa. they can arrest them or shoot them in the streets while they are committing crimes for all i care. it is lawful to use lethal force to stop the commission of a forcible felony. arson is a forcible felony. shoot the arsonists where they stand is the best way to restore order. i pray it happens and by the end of the week they are stacked like up like the bricks they were emplacing while planning the riots over the weekends

    1. I love Dr, Grande, I watch him all the time. And I use a few others. Dr. Ramani Durvasula, and Dr. Ross Rosenberg, and Dr. Les Carter (for a lil southern twang) 😉

  4. OT: More on those concerned about voter fraud and mail in ballots
    NJ NAACP Leader Calls For Paterson Mail-In Vote to Be Canceled Amid Corruption Claims
    Two more candidates, including one of the race winners, joined the call for a recount and a criminal investigation

    By Jonathan Dienst and Joe Valiquette • Published May 27, 2020 • Updated on May 29, 2020 at 11:56 pm
    A Paterson NAACP leader said the recent city council vote-by-mail election was allegedly so flawed that the results should be thrown out and a new election ordered.

    “Invalidate the election. Let’s do it again,” Rev. Kenneth Clayton said amid reports more that 20 percent of all ballots were disqualified, some in connection with voter fraud allegations.

    “These kinds of acts make people not want to vote anymore. They feel disenfranchised, disconnected that their votes don’t count, and that is not fair to people,” he said.

    Rev. Clayton said the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) will soon be filing a written complaint to Gov. Phil Murphy — who ordered the vote-by-mail only election — and State Attorney General Grubir Grewal.

    Paterson activist Ernest Rucker said his experience this election is an example of the kind of corruption that allegedly took place. Rucker said he never received a ballot but that election records show someone mailed in a ballot in his name.

    “I was robbed of the right to vote or not vote,” Rucker said. “I was disenfranchised.”

    More News on Paterson Election Scandal

    New Jersey Deputy Assembly Speaker Benjie Wimberly and his family had a different issue. “My vote and my wife and two sons’ votes did not count in this past municipal election,” he said.

    Wimberly said he is a supporter of Gov. Murphy but given the history of vote-by-mail controversies, the governor should have done more to allow in-person voting and to ensure safeguards were in place for those ballots sent by mail. That one in five ballots were eliminated, some due to alleged corruption, Wimberly said he was “fed up with this … That’s how you disenfranchise voters. That’s the bottom line.”

    Wimberly said he was still waiting for an explanation from the Board of Elections as to why his family’s votes were set aside. He said if the issue is a signature matching the one on file, it’s possible for signatures can change over the years. He said the voting booths should be open for elections, adding that if people can shop in supermarkets and liquor stores using checkout machines, they can do it for elections too.

    “It is what is right for the people,” Wimberly said. “We need in-person voting machines with social distancing.”


    3,000 Ballots Not Counted In Paterson Election

    In Paterson, New Jersey, over eight hundred ballots were eliminated due to ballot stuffing and other allegations, however two thousand other ballots have been eliminated without an explanation.

    Murphy ordered elections vote-by-mail in an attempt to keep people safe during the coronavirus crisis. In the upcoming primary, the governor will allow one in-person voting site per town.

    In addition to apparent problems with the vote count in Paterson, NBC New York has shown video of ballots left out in building lobbies, of one voter handling many ballots, and reported on postal workers reporting finding hundreds of ballots at a time stuffed in mailboxes in Paterson – and even in a neighboring town, Haledon.

    Two councilmembers are demanding a recount and criminal investigation. Mohammed Akhtaruzzaman said Wednesday his lawyer filed a formal appeal with the courts. “The integrity of this election is in question,” he said.

    “(Authorities) should take a close look at how the Paterson election went, put the corrective action in place and if there is wrongdoing I would hope they would uncover that and take all appropriate action,” said longtime councilman Bill McKoy.

    A winning candidate, Luis Velez, agreed. He added that authorities need to be more transparent given the widespread fraud allegations.

    “The individuals conducting the investigation should come out and talk and bring back the confidence of those voters and where they stand with those investigations,” Velez said.

    To date spokespersons for the State Attorney General, the NJ Secretary of State, the FBI and U.S. attorney have all declined to say if an investigation is underway. Numerous residents and candidates have said FBI agents and investigators from other agencies have been in town asking questions. A spokesman for the Justice Department Civil Rights Division in Washington DC also had no comment.

    Murphy has said the problems in Paterson would be looked at but advised one Paterson resident who had raised doubts about the process to “keep the faith.”

    Assemblyman Wimberly, who said he is a strong Murphy supporter, said he has been disappointed in the governor’s response to date. “Keep the faith is not the answer any voter is looking for in particular the 3,200 voters who had their votes thrown out in this past municipal election.”

    The vote for the council means control of $300 million in spending. Add in school funding and state aid, the city budget totals nearly $1 billion dollars. Veteran Paterson Press writer and editor Joe Malinconico said Paterson has a history of voter fraud and election controversies. Malinconico said one key question unanswered by election officials is why those 3,200 votes were apparently rejected.

    “What is the track record on rejecting vote-by-mail ballots?” Malinconico said is another issue. Malinconico is awaiting word from the Board of Elections as to what percentage of mail votes were rejected in the past as compared to 19 percent seemingly rejected in this all vote-by-mail election.

    “It’s one out of every five people, imagine that. If one out of five people showed up at the polls on election day and were turned away, we would have an incredible backlash in this country.”


        1. You and Amy would seem to have a lot in common, Allan. You see threats where they don’t exist (or pretend to see them) — and now you’re digging in you heels about a minor request. If you want to behave badly, be my guest. It’s a reflection on you, not anyone else.

          1. Amy made a bigger deal than perhaps she should have. After all she appears to be like you an hysterical progressive, but that didn’t give Christian the right to try and separate her from her dog even if he was using that attempt (food) to get her to leash her dog. He is not a police officer. He could have called the police. Liklely this was premeditated on his part and he was using a type of force that shouldn’t have been used.

            1. In the other recent mass public misadventure burning through the country (litterally).

              Floyd committed a crime.
              He was legitimated arrested by a real police office.
              He subsequently died on the care of that police office.

              To paraphrase Paul – this is all Floyd’s fault – after all he committed a crime, he was the proximate cause of this.

              Floyd also had absolutely no reason to fear for his life – he was in the custody of the police. Not threatened by a strange man in the woods.

              The fundimental difference between Floyd and Amy is that Floyd was a black criminal encountering a white cop.

              Amy was a white female minor scofflaw, encountering an unknown black male stranger with no authority in the woods who threatened her.

              Too many posters decide the correct outcome based on what role is occupied by the black man. Not the facts.

              1. John Say – at this point, unless you have newer information, they did not check that Floyd had the $20. They did not ask where he got it, etc. So, I do not blame Floyd for anything, he seems to have been cooperative with the arrest, except for the claustrophobia. We still do not know why they pulled him from the SUV and put him on the ground.

                1. The officers in question were dispatched to arrest Floyd.
                  Whatever the actual facts, they were specifically directed to arrest him – not investigate.

                  You do not blame Floyd for anything ?
                  I will wait for the facts, but the likelyhood the arrest was unjustified is small, and even if so, that error occured back at dispatch not the officers on the scene.

                  Regardless, lets assume as is near certain Floyd was a criminal, committing a crime, I beleive he was also drunk and sitting on top of his car.

                  It is near certain we will have plenty of evidence shortly that Floyd is quilty of innumerable things – before the police showed up.

                  I would note there is still not video of Amy violating the law. All the evidence of that is from Christian’s statement.
                  All the evidence of Floyd’s crimes is from the police.

                  You beleive Christian but not the police dispatcher ?

                  I do not know whether we know the things you claim we do not.

                  But that is irelevant to the argument.

                  Amy was accused of a breach of the law, and by your argument – she is the proximate cause for all that followed.

                  Floyd was accused of a crime – why is he not by your argument the proximate cause for all that followed ?

                  In the real world niether Amy not George are responsible for the choices of others that followed their alleged act.

                  You can not murder someone because they are drunk on their care and a forger.

                  You can not threaten someone or their dog, because they had the dog off the leash.

                  From what I understand you are not progressive.
                  But you are making precisely the situational or emotion driven arguments that progressives make all the time.

                  Facts, logic reason.

                  Not emotions. Not warped racial calculus.

                  1. John Say – to the best of my knowledge, they did not have Floyd’s name, just that he was sitting in a car around the corner.


                    On the right hand side, near the top you will see the areas where dogs must be on a leash. The Ramble is one of those.

                    For someone who supposedly know about logic, you sure have trouble following directions or expecting others to follow directions.

                    1. “John Say – to the best of my knowledge, they did not have Floyd’s name, just that he was sitting in a car around the corner.”

                      So Christian did not have Amy’s name.

                    2. Paul, do you know what LAW is ?

                      A guide is NOT law. We have been down this road before. You can find an assortment of pages that are guides or summaries or ….
                      There have been links to atleast 3 different Central Park rules/guides,
                      As well as a link to the Ny York Sanitation deparment guide for dogs,
                      that has a link to the actual laws that is different from the guide.

                      None of that is the applicable law.

                      The actual NYPS law was linked to several times.

                      Annoymous has even excerpted completely irrelevant sections.

                      Regardless if you follow his link you will find the applicable law.

                      There is a full paragraph describing the legal defintion of a “leashed dog”.
                      Which really means an Owner Controlled dog.
                      Several options meeting that requirement are included.
                      The owners hand on the collar meets the legal requirements for control,
                      and even meets the specifics of a leash – less than 6ft.
                      0ft is less than 6ft. There is no difference between the owners hand on the leash and the leash connected to the collar. And the owners hand on the collar.

                      Again this is about Control – a leash longer than 6ft is NOT control.
                      A leash that the owner is not holding is NOT control.
                      The owner holding the Dog – in its arms, or by the collar is CONTROL.

                      Next the law is clear, no violation occurs until you are requested by NYPS or NYPD to leash your dog and you refuse.

                      There is zero enforcement authority to anyone else.

                      There is no evidence, except Christians FB post that the dog was ever in violation.

                      There are some other quirks – the CP “rules” specify the Ramble as a place dogs must always be leashed.

                      The NYPS law DOES NOT identify the Ramble as a location dogs must always be leashed.

                      There is not a chance in hell that with a good attorney Amy would be convicted of a violation of the leash law based on the facts we have.

                      We can both agree that she should have leashed her dog.

                      But when you try jump from “should” to enforce – you must follow the letter of the law.

                    3. You clearly do not understand logic.
                      And you do not seem to be able to read.

                      A violation of the law is determined by applying the actual law.
                      Not some guides.

                      I have said this multiple times – yet you ignore it.
                      I have actually treated you with respect.
                      But you are disrespecting me without cause.
                      All this appeals to emotion, all this ad hominem, all this offering the same false arguments over and over, all this offering something as relevant law that is clearly not the law, and the relevant law has already be provided.
                      This is disrepectful. It is not honest.

                      You are not required to do anything I ask. You are free to make the same already falsified arguments, to repeat the same fallacies over and over, to continue to offer the wrong law, or things that are not the law and claim they are the law – over and over.
                      I can not stop that. But I can call it out for what it is – DISHONEST.

                      The guides never accurately reflect “the law”. The law is written by lawyers and usually for lawyers. Further it strives to define everything clearly with no ambiguity at all.

                      You can violate park guidelines, without violating the law.
                      You can even violate the law without violating park guidelines.

              2. John, The way Paul is thinking at present means he has to draw different conclusions and think differently each time the facts are slightly altered. He is better than that so I don’t know why he hangs on so tight to an argument that in the past he would have dismissed as crazy.

          2. Christian’s threat was clear but not specific. That is actually a bad fact for him.

            He had only one legitimate threat he could make.
            An easy one – the same one Amy used – I will call the police.
            That is not the threat he made.

            Both Amy and Chritian were justified in Threatening each other under the circumstances.

            Amy made the threat that she was allowed. We can debate whether she had reasonable suspicion that her life was in danger, but the standard for that is low.

            Christian did NOT make the threat that was allowed.

    1. DSS, I’m not surprised that this woman may have had emotional problems and is unstable. That idea was one of the first I had when I heard the video. I think most intelligent people would have strong suspicions as well. Amy was totally wrong and let us say noticeably unstable. That would make Christians actions even worse since based on his background we can assume above average intelligence.

      Both of them acted poorly but neither of them should have lives affected because of this singular incident.

      1. Allan –

        Let’s call a spade a spade.

        Two middle-aged adults, of well-above-average intelligence, having a childish hissy fit tantrum.

        These two “go-getter” A-type personality persons (based in fact, both successful in life) just refused to back down to each other.

        Amy went postal on Christian. I highly doubt she hates black people, or is racist. She used a tool to hurt him, and she thought he would be in fear and leave. Christian did not leave, but stood his ground to the ridiculous threats.

        Christian instigated he whole episode. Who died and made him King of the Rambles?

        Next, Amy refused to be told what to do by a stranger in the park, even if the policy is what it is. Didn’t you know rules do not apply to executives and narcissists?

        Who has the bigger ego? Amy. Why? Bc she went Narc-Rage on him. It is like an explosion. Seen it 1000x in my life up to this point. It is a form of abuse, for sure.

        Did it work on him? Nope. He got the whole thing on tape.

        She apologized. He accepted. Moving on.

        1. WW33, as I have said over and over both Christian and Amy acted foolishly. You agree with that, right?

          1. Allan – Oh, I was not on here for a few days. 100 % agree with you. I am sorry. I was adding on, or concurring. I am not going to read 891 comments, just too much.

            Yes, I agree with you.

            1. WW33, there is no reason for you to read them all. You already got the gist of everything said. The arguments raised were emotional, knee jerk and in a backward way racist and sexist.

        2. “Christian instigated he whole episode. Who died and made him King of the Rambles?”

          Shame on that ‘uppity black man’ for thinking that he could ask someone to comply with a rule or reg in the Ramble. /sarc

          1. To save WW33 the problem of reading through a lot of your stupidity I will reaffirm what has been said. Everyone agreed that Christian ” could ask someone to comply with a rule or reg in the Ramble” and everyone agreed Amy broke the leash law. It was the stupidity added by you that confused the issue with things that either weren’t known or didn’t count.

          2. Nothing wrong with asking Amy to comply.
            When she refused his choices were call the police, or ignore it.

            He did not have the choice of threatening her or her dog.

            You do not ever try to lure a dog especially when the owner is present without their permission.

      2. Both of them “should” have above average intelligence.

        Neither was demonstrating it that day.

        I am a bit unnerved by the evidence that Christians actions were atleast partly premeditated.

        I will give Amy alot of latitude in her conduct.
        Few people do well, under pressure.

        I has said I work hard to post precisely.
        Amy did not have 10 minutes to compose her words.
        She was near certainly hopped up on adrenaline, confused and scared.
        Pretty much the recipe for bad choices and bad choice of words.

        Yet most of Amy’s mistakes were small/
        She should not have taken the dog off the leash.
        She should have retreated,
        Threatening to Call the police if Christian did not stop videoing her was wrong.
        The two are NOT connected in a way to justify the threat – the same problem that Christian has.
        She was justified in calling the police.
        Saying that her life was threatened is pretty close to the limits.
        She was clearly threatened but the threat was not specific.

        Amy’s remarks are more precise than Christian’s.
        Christian issue a clear threat that was inarticulate and amiguous.
        Ambiguity is NOT his friend. Amy’s threat was clear – to call the police.
        She even told him what should would say – and that is what she said.
        Her call was at the limits of what she could report – but it was within them.
        There is no means to interpret Amy’s threat ambiguously.
        She did not threaten him with harm.
        Christian beleives his conduct was righteous – therefore he has nothing to fear from the police – and he says as much.
        The media claim that she threatened to rain paratrooping Nazi stormtroopers on him is nonsense. Christian certainly did not treat Amy’s threat as something he should fear.
        He looked forward to the police.

        But i do not expect perfection of people under stress – neither of them.

    2. Amy and Christian past may be very interesting. Both of them are unappealing as people.

      But it is not relevant to the specific incident in the park.

        1. Nope

          Neither Christian nor Amy had any information about the others past or character at the time of the incident.

          You can judge Amy’s life as a whole based on outside information.

          But you can only judge her and Christians actions based on the information each had available to them at the moment

          Without warning A man with a gun breaks your door down in the middle of the night
          You shoot him dead.

          Later you discover he is a plain cloths police officer. who goes to church and has a wife and two young kids.

          Does that change the legitimacy of your actions ?

          1. John Say – MN is dealing with a case just like that. The cop killed the wife, the husband killed the cop. they charged the husband with murder

            1. I asked you – not the MN police.

              With few exceptions if you shoot an unidentified police officer breaking into your home late at night – and that happens fairly often. you will be charged convicted and jailed.
              In the unlikely event you make it out of your home alive.

              That does not make it right.

              My point – which you are still missing is that you can not be held accountable for information that you did not know or could not reasonable know at the time of the event.

              1. John Say – there are rules for dogs in Central Park and my understanding is that The Ramble has a sign saying leash your dog or your dog must be on a leash.

                1. Correct – with qualifications.
                  RULES not LAW.

                  If you violate a park rule – the penatly is you can be removed even barred from the park.
                  The park can have ALMOST any rules it wants.

                  NO ONE has argued Amy did not follow the “rules”

                  As to qualifications. I no longer recall precisely what the park RULES say.
                  Further rules rarely precisely define terms – LAWS must.

                  The legal definition of “leashed” is under physical control of the human.
                  The law specifies many ways that can occur.

                  You also seem to have a fixation on 6ft leashes. The law says 6ft or less.
                  I do not beleive the leash says ANYTHING about the length.

                  The park is probably free to interpret the rules however they like.
                  But not the law.
                  But my bet is they interpret the rules exactly the same as the law.

                  I would be shocked if the park would throw someone out for bringing in a pet in a pat carrier. In Paul world does that violate the “rules” ?
                  It does not violate the leash law.

    1. The article is precisely what is wrong with this whole mess.

      Not a thing listed in the article is relevant.

      I do not care if Amy is a good person.

      I do not care if she is racist.

      I do not care if she “conjured up Emmitt Till”.

      None of those are supposed to be relevant in our justice system.

      What is supposed to matter is the facts and the law.

      Sometimes criminals are victims of crimes, Sometimes bad people are, sometimes unlikable people are.

      Actual justice is supposed to be blind to all but the facts.

      Now I think some of the claims in the Forbes articles are ludicrous.

      The odds that any 40yr woman you find in Central Park is racist is near zero.

      Overpriviledged ? Absolutely – both of them.

      If you are to sort this out based on their character rather than the facts – both of these Karen’s are bad news.

  5. “And women alone in the park with their dog have good reason to fear strange and confrontive [sic] men.” — John Say

    A woman with a lick of sense wouldn’t put herself in the position of being alone in a park — even with a dog. Sadly, it’s asking for trouble.

    1. Really ?

      Your idea of sexual equality is women must live in fear ?

      That they should not be free to make the same choices that you do ?

    2. “A woman with a lick of sense wouldn’t put herself in the position of being alone in a park — even with a dog.”

      It seems that some advocate women lock themselves behind closed doors. How very modern of you and your way of thinking. Considering what you believe did you ever bother to think that Christian being a rather large man shouldn’t have threatened a woman alone in the park?

      No, I don’t think you did because people that can only think one level in depth can seldomly analyze a problem with more than one component.

  6. John Say says:May 30, 2020 at 12:08 AM

    “Yes, her threat is specific – I will call the police.

    “You seem to be having a problem with threats – you seem to think that either Threats are universally allowed or universally prohibited.”


    Nope — I’m not “having a problem with threats…” Perhaps you’re projecting.

    Not all threats are credible, though. Fortunately, some folks are trying to sort it all out, according to the info supplied by Paul a few hours ago. This is that article, I believe:


    Also, Amy apparently has a history of making (false?) threats, so there’s that… (Refer to Daily Mail article, linked below.)

    Maybe we’ll learn more down the road.

    And this is totally off the wall: “…you seem to think that either Threats are universally allowed or universally prohibited.” Gotta laugh and wonder how you reach some of your baseless conclusions about others.

    1. This has all be sorted out already.

      It takes very little. The standard Amy must meet to call 911 is very low.

      Absolutely the NYPD can violate Amy’s civil rights, and ignore the standards,
      They can “investigate” and pretend this is more complex than it is.
      Mostly I think they are just engaged in political theater.

      Regardless, have you actually consider the impact if you raise the bar for women calling 911, when they feel threatened alone with a man ?

      Do you want more rapes and murders ? Do you want more scared women unwilling to leave their apartments ? Do you want women to live in fear ?

      You seem to grasp that is wrong for black men to have to fear encounters with police – and it is. But that is a GOVERNMENT problem. You do not fix the fact that police might treat black men disparately by saying people who are threatened by black man can not call the police.

      Regardless, How long has racism in this country lasted ?
      How long has sexism been around ?

      When did black men get the right to vote ? When did women ?

    2. You so called history is irrelevant.

      I have not heard that Amy has repeatedly called 911.

      But lets say she has.
      Does that mean that she can not do so ever again – that she must risk rape and murder because her past fears have been less than fully justified ?

      Do you not think that other women are already being negatively impacted by this ?

      Do you think women are now more reluctant to walk their dogs alone in the park.
      Or just be alone.

      Is your idea of a just society one in which women must live in fear or conduct themselves as if they are not permitted to call for help ?

      1. John, some of these guy’s critical thinking skills are schizophrenic in nature. #metoo women must be believed even with a total lack of evidence, women are raped and white men are toxic, suddenly from victim status this woman becomes part of the toxic culture because in her description of a man she said African American and suddenly she should be banned from ever calling on the police again.

        The way things spin in these people’s heads I would think they would be continuously sea sick.

        1. Progressivism is inherently so self contradictory it is trivial to tie up in knots.

          You can not be progressive and logical.

  7. “EXCLUSIVE: Former colleague of Amy Cooper reveals how she tried to ‘ruin his life with bogus lawsuit and threatened his family when he said he didn’t love her'”


    Martin Priest, a former co-worker of Amy Cooper, says he wasn’t surprised by the viral video, telling DailyMail.com he’s ‘seen that type of false hysteria before’

    Priest told DailyMail.com how the now 41-year-old allegedly attempted to destroy his life with a series of ‘baseless’ allegations in a 2015 lawsuit

    Priest said he had been friends with Cooper for a number of years before the suit but began to distance himself from her sometime in 2012

    In the months that followed, Priest says he was routinely ‘harassed’ and ‘stalked’ by Cooper, and bombarded with threatening calls and texts

    The purported onslaught culminated in Priest filling two police reports against Cooper in 2013 and 2014, for harassment and breaking and entering

    Cooper filed a lawsuit against Priest in 2015 – which has since been dismissed – claiming he stole $65K from her and threatened her life

    Priest vehemently denies he was ever involved romantically with Cooper and fiercely denies the allegations she made in the lawsuit, calling them ‘heinous’

    Priest also accuses Cooper of using a racial slur when he told her he was voting for Barack Obama years earlier
    Amy Cooper has not yet responded to a DailyMail.com request for comment on any of the allegations made by Priest


    PUBLISHED: 17:40 EDT, 29 May 2020 | UPDATED: 18:10 EDT, 29 May 2020

    Full article with more detail via link, above.

    1. Anyone here saying Amy was a nice person ?

      You still seem to think that things from outside the actual interaction have relevance.

      Christian could not know any more about Amy than what he saw in front of him.
      Amy could not know more of Christian that what she saw.

      The actions of each must be judged only in the light of what the knew at the moment.

      Another factor you do not seem to grasp

      People selling loose cigarettes illegally do not deserve a death sentence.
      Alleged counterfeiters do not deserve a death sentence.
      People who run their dogs of the leash in the park do not deserve a death sentence
      and whatever this allegation regarding Amy’s past boyfriend, her behavior in that does not mean she is barred from being safe in the park.

      This is not about who is a good person and who is not.

      This is about the behavior of Amy and Christian in a short window of time in Central park

      I expect that both Amy and christian are progressives – 70% of those in NYC are.
      I do not expect either of them to prove to be “good people”.

      There both Karen’s – pretty much a synonym for progressive, and not especially good person.

      Still not the issue.

      1. John Say – George Floyd appears to have died of a heart attack. And again, you are mixing up “facts”. Just stick to the facts. Isn’t that your mantra?

        1. This article is not about Floyd. I am not professing to know all the facts of the Floyd incident. I am aware that there is a claim he had a heart attack. I do not know that has been established yet. Maybe it has. If True that makes the police actions more like manslaughter than murder. Once the police cuff Floyd they had a duty of care to him as he was unable to care for himself.

          Regardless, My central FACT is that Amy should be happy the Floyd incident knocked he out of the spotlight.

    1. “I see that Allan is up to his usual nonsense. It’s time to bring in Allan-Jethro Bodine:”

      Is that a threat? Are you stupider then you sound? Why do I care if you call me names? If you write it once or you write it a thousand times, what is the difference? You look like a fool when you repeat the same meme. It demonstrates that you don’t have enough of a brain to be able to think of something new. This is your problem not mine so you can do as you please. However, if you wish to look smarter rather than dumber you will think about how you comport yourself on the blog.

      1. Allan asks, “Is that a threat?”


        I think Allan has spent too much time here and is channeling Amy.

        1. It was a legitimate question. My answer was as follows:

          Is that a threat? Are you stupider then you sound? Why do I care if you call me names? If you write it once or you write it a thousand times, what is the difference? You look like a fool when you repeat the same meme. It demonstrates that you don’t have enough of a brain to be able to think of something new. This is your problem not mine so you can do as you please. However, if you wish to look smarter rather than dumber you will think about how you comport yourself on the blog.

          1. Some muddled crazy thinking on your part, Allan. Get help, buddy. It’s clear that you need it.

            No one is threatening you, bud, so you can relax and calm down.

            1. Who would worry about a threat from your kind. You are the type that runs back to mama. I feel sorry for mama because she must know she failed.

    1. Let’s look at the little exchange that follows:

      John makes the false claim that the dog is leashed at the beginning of the video. It is not. When called on his error, he tries to dance his way out of it. It’s why one needs to look very carefully at everything that John Say says.

      John Say says: May 29, 2020 at 4:44 AM

      Christian’s statement of facts in the interview contradicts on several points

      In his interveiw Christian says that he recorded Amy and her dog UNTIL she leashed the dog.

      The dog is in Amy’s control and leashed at the very start of the video.

      Christian says in the interview that he tossed out the treat so that Amy would have to leash the dog to get it away from the treat.

      That makes no sense and contradicts his published remarks.

      Most of Amy’s remarks sound like a maoist self criticism.
      Regardless she adds little to the facts.

      Anonymous says:May 29, 2020 at 5:08 AM
      The dog in the video is not leashed.

      John Say says:May 29, 2020 at 5:46 AM
      From the start to the end of the video the Dog’s collar is in Amy’s hand.

      The dog is not loose, it meets the legal requirements for “leashed”.

      Paul C Schulte says:May 29, 2020 at 6:29 AM
      John Say – the rules require a 6′ leash. Not holding on to its collar. Nice try, but no cigar.


      And continue on to see how John plays it from there. Read all the comments, for there is personal baggage that John is toting…and I’m sorry for that, but it’s definitely coloring his views… He’d never make it through jury selection, that’s for sure.

      1. From the start of the video the dog meets the requirements of the “leash law” that you cited for being leashed. Go read your own link.
        The dog must be under the control of the owner – that includes the owner holding the collar of the dog, There is no point in the entire video in which Amy does not have the dogs collar in her hand.

        IF it is necescary for your ego to claim an error on my part because at the start the leash is not clipped to the dogs collar.

        Then accept my appology for my error.

        That said the error does nto alter the fact that the dog was “leashed” according to the defintion of leashed in the law you provided.

        Aside from the discrepancy between the legal defition of leashed – which Amy met from the start to the end of the video, there is no error in the rest of my remarks.

        Please read the law – YOU provided the link to the law. I would expect you have actually read it.

        The law does not as Paul stated require the dog to be on a 6ft leash.
        It requires the dog to be under the control of the owner. It provides a leash of 6′ or LESS as an option.

        The dog in a crate, in the Owners arms. or with the owners Hand on its collar ALL meet the requirements of the law for the dog to be considered legally “leashed”.

        If you are going to fixate on the law – atleast read is CAREFULLY.

        I would also suggest RATIONALLY. Do you honestly think that the law would be written to explicitly require 6ft leashes, and nothing else ?
        That dogs would not be allowed in the park if they were in cages or carriers ?
        That small dogs held in people arms would be prohibited.

        I think government is stupid and often writes bad laws with uninitended consequences, but not that bad.

      2. From the start of the video the dog meets the legal but not colloquial definition of leashed.

        Does that correction satisfy you ?

        Regardless, that is the only correction needed to make every other comment of mine you cited correct.

        Further, the change does not alter the fundimental meaning of my remarks.

        We have no evidence beyond Christian’s statement that the Dog was ever in violation of the law.

        The probability is that at some point it was.
        Probability is important. Some arguments can only be made probabilistic.

        Every argument I have made about Christian – except his remarks on the video,
        is also probabalistic.

        Everyone assumes that Christian accurately reported later his own acts and statements.
        We do not know that either.

        Christian is not especially articulate.
        It is possible that his actions and words were more benign than he reports.

      3. “Paul C Schulte says:May 29, 2020 at 6:29 AM

        John Say – the rules require a 6′ leash. Not holding on to its collar. Nice try, but no cigar”

        Yes, Paul is mostly correct: An actual leash is required — and “not [simply] holding on to its collar” — as noted.

        As for the length of the leash, it can’t be longer than 6′, though no one will probably notice or care if it’s a bit longer. The “rule” though — is the that leash be 6′ or shorter.

        In addition:


        §1-04 Prohibited Uses

        Violation of any paragraph or subparagraph of this section shall subject the violator to a civil penalty, as specified in the Department’s penalty schedule. See 56 RCNY §1-07. In addition, except as otherwise provided below, such violation shall also constitute an offense (classified as a “violation” under the Penal Law), which can be punished by imprisonment of up to one day or a fine of not more than $200. As specified in this section, certain violations of specified paragraphs or subparagraphs of this section are classified by the Administrative Code as misdemeanors. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a misdemeanor can be punished by imprisonment of up to 20 days or a fine of not more than $1,000. Note that other laws, including but not limited to the Penal Law, may also apply to the conduct described below.


        Control of Dogs & Other Animals to Prevent Nuisance

        Each person who owns or controls a pet shall not allow the animal to commit a nuisance on any public or private premises used in common by the public, or any area of a building abutting a public place.

        Related Law: New York City Health Code §161.03

        Fine: $200–$400

        Unleashed Dogs

        A person who owns or controls a dog may not allow it to be in any public place or in any open or unfenced field abutting a public place, unless the dog is effectively restrained by a leash or chain no more than six feet long.

        Related Law: New York City Health Code §161.05

        Fine: $200–$400

        1. Please read the actual code – code that you linked.
          Pretty much everything you are saying about the leash provisions is false.

          Not only is Paul not correct – and that is clear if you read the law,
          But it takes very little intelligence to grasp that the law would not be written that way.
          The objective is to have dogs under the control of their owner, Not to require exactly 6ft leashes. If you read the code a leach is not required, but if a leash is the means of control it can be no longer than 6′. Not atleast 6′. Again that would make sense.
          I know that lots of law often does not make sense. But it is not usually so bad as you are positing.

          Further this is getting stupid. We have the actual law. I beleive it is you that found it.
          You keep quoting completely irrelevant sections.

          Read the sections you cite – they are pretty clear that you can not rely on what they say UNLESS you have read the more specific section elsewhere.

          Elements of what you have quited apply – not that it is relevant to the discussion.
          As all the section you quoted says – that violations of provisions you have not cited might have penalties.

          I have no clue why you think that is meaningful.

          One of your links is to a Department of Sanitation code. It is highly unlikely that applies in the park
          Further what you linked to is NOT the law, it is the DSN’s summary of the law.
          And not even the correct law regarding the park.

          But the page you provide does link to the actual code which says

          § 161.05 Dogs to be restrained.
          (a) Except as specified in subdivision (b) of this section, a person who owns, possesses or controls a dog shall not permit it to be in any public place or in any open or unfenced area abutting on a public place unless the dog is effectively restrained by a leash or other restraint not more than six feet long.

          Other restraint includes a collar being held by the owner.

          But if you go to the next paragraph it explicity states that there are different laws that apply in parks, so you are not even in the right law.


          1. “READ!!!!!!” -John Say

            You’re making this harder than it needs to be, John Say. As you said, “READ!!!!!!” Take your own advice.

              1. rather than make irrelevant and false emotional judgements,.

                You could easily win your argument if you were actually correct by providing the correct sections of the correct law.

                If you can not find them on line, I am pretty sure they are quoted somewhere above.

                Find the section of the correct law that specifies LEGALLY, what a “leashed dog” is – as the text makes clear the requirement is that the dog be “controlled”. Numerous possibilities for control are provided, one of which is a leash of 6ft or less.
                A hand on the collar is a leash of 0ft. Regardless it means the dog is controlled.

                Next find the section regarding when the violation occurs and who can enforce.

                The violation occurs NOT when you enter the park with an unleashed dog, but when you are asked to leash the dog by NYPD or NYPS, not random strangers.
                And who can enforce – NYPD and NYPS – not random strangers.

            1. I have read it.
              If you have you clearly did not comprehend it as you keep citing obviously meaningless portions.

              There is a section specifically about the requirements for a controlled dog.
              A leash is NOT required. Some leashes – ones LONGER than 6ft are not acceptable.
              You clearly have either not read or not comprehended that section.

              There is another section on enforcement and when the actual violation occurs.
              Police and NYPS people can enforce the law.
              A violation occurs ONLY when you refuse their request.

                1. Not according to the law.
                  The law specifies that you can not be charged until you have refused to comply when asked by NYPD or NYPS.

            2. You have cited the wrong law,
              Cited innaccurate summaries of the wrong law,
              cut and pasted irrelevant sections of the right law,

              Why am I supposed to beleive you have actually read the relevant sections of the correct law ?

    2. Paul is pretty far off track, and there are so many posts specifically because Paul and others keep going off track.

      The facts are simple, They have been covered repeatly – because despite their simplicity some want a different outcome that that dictated by the facts.

      Only a small number of posts could cover everything relevant in this issue.

      The enormous number of posts is because:

      When you do not like the outcome you try to respin the facts.

      Because so many irrlevant and fallacious arguments keep getting made.
      Stick to facts, not what you think others think, not to others motives, not to others experince.

      This is about facts, not personalities.

      To falsify a validly formed argument you must either demonstrate that a premise – a fact is incorrect, or that the argument is not actually valid.

      You can not spin it. And no amount of fallacious responses will change its conclusions.

      If you do not want 800 posts on a simple issue. Stick to the facts and make valid arguments.

      1. John Say – fact: you cannot shut up about this issue and so you are vested emotionally.

        1. Paul, you are not characteristically insulting but in this case it sounds like you are. John Say hasn’t attacked you though he disagreed with your ideas. You on the other hand sound uncharacteristically rude “shut up” and are attacking “vested emotionally.” with an empty idea. You are as emotionally vested as he or myself.

          You should know you are going down the wrong path because you got a +10 from anonymous which is the kiss of death to any intelligent poster’s reputation. I know from past experience you cringe at that +10 and wish it wasn’t posted. I guess we can say it is not your fault and you sort of slipped up because this is not the PCS I am familiar with.

          I’ll pour you a drink but you have to tell me your choice. 🙂

            1. I actually listened to him. Since I agree Amy is a ‘Karen’ I don’t disagree with his most basic statements but then he went too far on the assumptions one of which might actually be endangering women that listen to him. They might worry more than they should about calling the police when in an uncomfortable position. He did not deal with Christian or what looks like premeditation along with an act that increases the likelihood of conflict.

              Anyhow you want too much to feel you were right so you have your affirmation in what I consider a poor analysis.

              Keurig? I prefer Nespresso but Keurig it is.

              1. Allan – just because he doesn’t support you, it is a poor analysis. Okay, I got it. Confirmation bias confirmed. 😉

                1. I have serious concerns with what he said and I think he drew too many conclusions to heighten the fear of not accepting his analysis.

                  I made mention earlier of one thing in particular that bothered me. Here is what he said.

                  “I think what she did was a fairly
                  serious offence under New York law she
                  could be charged with making a false
                  report which is a Class A misdemeanor
                  was the most severe type of misdemeanor
                  the penalty is up to one year in jail
                  and a $1,000 fine now to some this would
                  seem extremely punitive but her intent
                  was malicious this was not a harmless
                  act in what she engaged I think it’s
                  important that she is arrested and
                  prosecuted for this crime if it had
                  resulted in a shooting or some other
                  type of assault by the police she
                  certainly would have been charged with
                  that crime and many more Christian did
                  nothing wrong in the situation so the
                  way I look at this is if he had just
                  been sitting there and she walked up
                  behind him and called the police on him
                  how would people feel about that or if
                  she just called the police randomly on
                  anybody that would definitely be
                  something that would result in an arrest
                  its behavior like this that can be the
                  root of life threatening instance one
                  person making an extremely bad decision
                  and filing a false report can lead to
                  disaster at the time making this video
                  the New York State Police Department
                  does not appear to be interested in this
                  case anymore

                  Women, especially younger ones listening to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine might hesitate to call the police when they are suspicious about a man’s actions and are alone in an isolated area. Perhaps I care more about women’s safety than I do about the PC that blinds progressives so badly.

                  He continues: ” I think it’s important that she is arrested and prosecuted for this crime…” In other words if the NYC policemen are incompetent then she is at fault and should be arrested. It is also doubling down on the fear component that might inhibit a young woman from calling should she need help.

                  To support his claims he delves into hypotheticals and then asks how people would feel which in this case immediately warns one they are not dealing with a clear minded analyst. They are dealing with one pushing personal convictions.

                  I’m sorry Paul, but I find your judgement in this type of issue to be quite naive and uninformed.

                  1. Allan – well, the DA is taking a look at the case to see if charges should be filed against Amy. So, others support my judgment.

                    1. Paul, you should always be suspicious when politics enters the realm of good government and the law. That you need the approval of others doesn’t support your judgement at all. It means you blow in the direction of the wind.

                      This case likely is going nowhere and the fact that the DA is looking at it is another threat to young women that might be fearing for their life but are too worried to make a complaint for fear of retribution by those firmly attached to the PC culture. That is why many women did not come forward in the past, but suddenly you forget that along with history and the safety of women becomes a non concern.

                    2. The DA “looked at the case” of the central park 5 and that is how 5 innocent men were jailed for as much as 2 decades.

                    3. “The DA “looked at the case” of the central park 5 and that is how 5 innocent men were jailed for as much as 2 decades.”

                      John, you have concluded innocence. There was no innocent verdict. There was no follow up trial to find these boys innocent. The facts reveal quite a different story than innocent youths. I am not predicting the outcome of another trial should it have happened. It’s over but your description of “innocent men” IMO is wrong.

                    4. Allan, there is no question at all the Central Park 5 were innocent. if you are familiar with the story it is a miracle the DA got convictions. One of those convicted was not even in the park at the time of the rape, Another was in the park on the opposite side being beaten up. The timeline did not work. Only two of the CP5 had met each other before that night. There was no physical evidence of any kind. They had contradictory confessions extracted after 18hrs of questioning without lawyers – all but one of the CP5 were underaged and could not be questioned without their family or lawyers, yet they were.
                      The police had a horrific case they desparately needed to close and so they concocted a story and setup a bunch of kids that actually trusted the police.

                      But the nail on this was that as the last jailed member of the CP5 could not get released on parole because he refused to admit to having committed the crime. An inmate at the same facility watching this came forward and admitted to being the actual rapist.
                      He had a record as a serial rapist, there was a DNA match, He did this alone, he knew none of the CP5,

                      The crime committed on Ms Miele was brutal. She nearly died, she has lifetime disabilities. But that crime was not committed by the 5 who were accused and falsely convicted.

                      And in some way Amy Cooper is paying for that.

                  2. Allan,
                    I think she should get hit with the $1000 fine. Not the year in jail, though, since she has lost her job and her dog as well. She should experience the court system some because of her false statements.

                    It is pretty logical to conclude that right before the video started that the dog was off-leash. She is holding it in her hand as she points at the camera. She only just grabbed the dog when Christian started filming.

                    If she had been using her hand on its collar instead of the leash the whole time, she would have retorted something like the leash broke, now I have to hold my dog’s collar.

                    Also, she was breaking the law even if NYPD had not corrected her. The police are not the law. The law is there so we can police ourselves. The police are for enforcing the law for those who will not enforce it in themselves.

                    Women, even young ones, know the difference between making a legitimate call out of concern and a false report.

                    Christian, though, should get a stern talking to by the police. He should not lure people’s dogs with treats. It’s unduly manipulative.

                    I disagree with Dr. Grande when he said that Christian did nothing wrong. Perhaps Dr. Grande was unaware of the additional details about the dog treats that came out in newspaper articles.

                    1. Ack. I did forget that Christian said something to the effect of you’re not going to like what I’m going to do. That’s a threat. It’s vague and open to interpretation. If he is a big guy, that can potentially increase the threat only because of the physical power difference. I do not necessarily think it was threatening her life. It could have been calling the police himself or the humane society. He was a jerk, too. The police ought to consider fining him for making threats. If he’s a bird watcher, then his favorite bird must be a Blue Jay; as birds go, they tend to intimidate other birds around them.

                      They both need to get off their high horse.

                      She one-upped his threat.
                      I’m not quite convinced she’s racist, though. He is black. He did make a threat. She exaggerated the threat. It was a battle of egos. If anything, she played the woman in distress card which is very detrimental to women actually in distress. Truth matters.

                    2. I am glad you understand that Christian threatened her.
                      Most of your analysis is very good.

                      Some threats are permissible. Some are not. Some are even crimes.

                      Christians threat was not specific. I do not think Christian is particularly articulate.
                      A specific threat – to call the police would have been acceptable.
                      Other specific threat – to take her dog, to poison the dog would have been crimes.

                      It is difficult to tell if a vague threat is justified or criminal.

                      But we know that Christian did not threaten to call the police, because he acted on the threat and tried to lure the dog with treats.
                      So we can preclude legitimate threats and we are only left with Threats that Chrisitan could not legitimately make.

                      Once it was clear Christian was willing to threaten to act and act lawlessly – and have no doubt that is what he did. You may not attempt to gain control of the property of anyone in their presense. There is no acceptable innocent version of that conduct.
                      Once you act lawlessly – it is a judgement call on the part of Amy as to how much of a threat he is to her dog and herself.

                      She likely (but not certainly and that is important) overreacted in identifying Christian as a threat to her life.

                      But there are important differences in here response relative to Christians.

                      Amy’s made a threat to – to call the police. That threat was legitimate – though her purpose was not – to get him to stop videoing her. She could accomplish that by retreating. And if he followed THEN make good on the threat – if he followed her when she retreated he IS a threat to her life.

                      Amy’s threat was also specific, and what she threatened was legitimate.
                      Even interpretting events most favorably to Christian she was free to call the police if someone tried to lure her dog with treats in her presence. That is an attempted theft.

                      It is unlikely that Christian would have been convicted of attempted theft in NYC on these facts, but he could have been charged – and in my county he would easily have been convicted.

                      Conversely Amy can not be charged with a dog law violation – the law requires that she refuse a request from the police or NYPS first.
                      NYPS could ban her from the park, that is about it.

                      I would further note that the video does not show the dog in violation of the law.
                      The video shows Amy with her hand on the dogs collar all the time.
                      That meets the requirements of the law.
                      We can assume the dog was running free before.
                      But we do not know it.
                      Christian says it was,
                      And I beleive at this point Amy has admitted it.
                      But we do not have actual evidence of that.
                      We also do not have direct evidence that Christian threatened Amy or the dog.
                      But we do have Christians own accounting that says he did.

                    3. “Ack. I did forget that Christian said something to the effect ”

                      Prairie, this is much better. I wouldn’t delve too far into the mindsets of the people involved unless you are listing some of the things that the person was thinking that may have led to any of the responses. Those are not facts but they tell us that we do not really know what was in anyone’s mind at the time. That also tells us to be careful with our conclusions. Both were jerks and this confrontation that seems rather benign could end up violent so people should learn to give another space and try not to increase an already hostile environment.

                      From the video and what we have seen Christian’s act likely was premeditated and he was likely looking for a victim. Would he have done the same thing to three big men with baseball bats? I doubt it because they could over power him. I think Christian could recognize that Amy was in comparison physically powerless so he could have been very happy to choose Amy as a target.

                    4. I do not have a problem with speculating about things that are not facts – so long as you clear that is what you are doing, and understand that there is the possibility of error.

                      There are clues in Christian’s remarks that he set a trap and that Amy was the unfortunate person who fell into it.
                      There are clues that he did this before.

                      That tells us alot about him as a person and it is not good.

                      But it is speculation, it is not incontrovertable conclusions from facts.

                      I have also speculated that NYPS is playing a game here. Giving Bird watchers what they want – by law, but not by action or enforcement, and giving dog owners what they want by inaction and deliberate non-enforcement.

                      In which case Christian’s real gripe is with NYPS. I think that is a strong possibility.
                      I think government does that alot.
                      But that conclusion is speculation not established fact.

                      I further wonder what the political impact of this will be.

                      Is the message that race issues are always subordinate to womens issues going to quietly ring through the female electorate and alter votes ?

                      Or do women always put their needs below those of every other group ?

                    5. “I have also speculated that NYPS is playing a game here. Giving Bird watchers what they want – by law, but not by action or enforcement, and giving dog owners what they want by inaction and deliberate non-enforcement.”

                      John, there is another reason behind the above actions you note. In a city so large, diverse and with so many tourists all unknown to one another there are many tiny conflicts. The police need a way to quickly defuse certain situations before they evolve into something more dangerous.

                      The police officer can say walk away and an argument can start…’it was the other person’s fault’. What does the police officer do then? What law does he pull out? He can use the leash law as a relatively benign way of defusing the situation without actually drawing conclusions. You will probably find that too intrusive but dogs do need to be leashed in too many situations. If the public doesn’t want the leash laws they can vote to get rid of them.

                    6. She can not be “hit” with anything.
                      The law requires that a police officer direct her to leash her dog, and that she refuse before she can be cited.

                      My Guess – which I have posted before is that The government essentially made promises to two groups – birders and dog owners, that it can not keep,
                      So it has the laws that Birders want, but has made enforcement rare in response to dog owners.

                      Ultimately NYC and paricularly manhattan is extremely dense.

                      There is insufficient space for all the different demands and values of people.
                      And we are seeing the typical government response – promise, but do not deliver.

                      Some of you can insist that the dog laws must be enforced vigorously.
                      That is fine, but it will have consequences.
                      Fewer dogs in NYC – and that will increase crime.
                      As well as more angry dog owners complaining.

                      It does nto matter what the law is or how reasonable it sounds.
                      In the real world perfect compliance is not only impossible but often wrong.

                      Passing laws and then rarely enforcing them is a common government response to demands that con nor be met.

                      But sometimes that blows up.

                    7. When the law specifies that the offense does not occur until you refuse direction from the police, then the police are the law.

                    8. “I think she should get hit with the $1000 fine.”

                      Why, Prairie? Can you read her mind? Do you know her history? Did she suddenly lose it? Is it worth it?

                      “Women, even young ones, know the difference between making a legitimate call out of concern and a false report.”

                      I guess that is why so much female abuse is kept hidden and those are one’s that have time to think. She didn’t have time to think and was acting reflexively pumped up with adrenaline. If one listens to the tape she sounded like an hysteric. Did you view the actual encouonter that occurred before the video started? No, but you are passing judgement. She lost her job and you want to fine her $1,000. Let’s get real. Getting even is not a good idea.

                    9. Allan,
                      ““Women, even young ones, know the difference between making a legitimate call out of concern and a false report.”

                      I guess that is why so much female abuse is kept hidden and those are one’s that have time to think.”

                      Women know when they are being malicious and when they are honestly concerned.

                      I am concerned about those women who falsely play the ‘woman in distress’ card as means of retaliation. Women can be nastily vindictive. Truth matters.

                      There was a gal when I was in college who made up a story about being kidnapped and raped by several black guys. While it was not directed against specific individuals, it unduly caused a great deal of anguish and upset on and off campus.

                      I did suggest that both should be charged and fined for threats. Might deflate their egos a bit.

                      The best scenario would have been for both of them to go their separate ways and bellyache about it to their diaries. Christian was a jerk for posting the video. His reputation is tarnished, too. I’d be wary of hiring him. Seems like the kind of person who likes to start drama.

                2. No it is poor analysis because it makes the same fallatious claims you do.

                  Linking to the pope agreeing with you is still an appeal to authority not an argument.

                  As you like youtube video’s
                  This lawyer does an excellent job of covering being carefull about jumping to conclusions.
                  A have a problem with his section on “false reports” he merely reads the law and offers a opinion that risk exists, where he actually analyzes elsewhere.

                  Regardless, he makes clear – there is alot wrong with Christian’s position.

                  He exposes potential flaws that I have not addressed – as areas a lawyer would enquire into. He also delves with Chrisitian’s motives in ways I have avoided, but he is probably right.


                  Regardless we can play dueling appeals to authority for ever.

              1. John Say – nope, it is not a fallacy. There was only one authority at that level. If you can find a conflicting on with the same credentials, post it. This is like an expert witness. Each side gets them.

                1. You clearly do not have any idea what an appeal to authority is.

                  An invalid or false argument is false regardless of the credentials of those making it.

                  I can cite my IQ, my SAT’s my scores on standardized tests or logic tests, or anything else I want that proves I am a great logician.

                  If my argument is wrong it is wrong regardless of my credentials.

                  An appeal to authority is arguing that you are write because someone else – usually highly credentialed agrees with you.

                  You can get Stephen Hawking to agree with you that still an appeal to authority.

                  1. John Say – I went through the material you sent, although I knew what a call to authority was, since I wanted us to be on the same page. Read what you sent me. And the rethink your IQ score.

                    1. The fallacy is “appeal to authority” not call to authority.

                      “When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an “authority” on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the “authority.””

                      Providing you with my IQ would be an appeal to my own authority.
                      My arguments are not correct merely because of my IQ.
                      They are logically correct and premised by facts. that is all that matters.

                    2. John Say – I would posit that your logic is flawed. BTW, when I took logic it was called a “call to authority.” I would also posit that the good Dr is correct in his thoughts on Amy and Karens.

                      BTW, unless your IQ is higher than Ted Kazinky, I am not going to impressed. 😉

                    3. The lowest estimate of My IQ is more than 10pts higher than Kazinsky.
                      But it is irrelevant what my IQ is if the argument is correct.
                      I do not care if you are impressed.

                      There is a bit of advice that is given to lawyers.
                      Do not ask questions of witnesses when you do not know the answers.

                      You keep making this mistake.

                    4. Paul says: ” I took logic it was called a “call to authority.”

                      He might be correct because he was in the same graduating class as George Washington who verified that and we all know George Washington never lied. 🙂

                    5. I was in the same class as Adam Smith.

                      Since you were at School with George, my Son wants to know why he did not use paratroopers to win the civil war.

                      Glad you have a sense of Humor.

                    6. John Say – tell him to look up the Civil War diaries of the heroic men who tried to train the pigeons. He will see the literal hell of war. Those poor men say it all.

          1. I have not been by in a while. So I do not know most of the players.

            I suspect I may have agreed with Paul on some past issue.

            I follow Turley heavily. but I usually only post once on interesting articles.

            I have another site I make the long arguments on

  8. I’m feeling good. Burdens have lifted.
    The Amy incident has pointed out rape culture was a big lie. By democrats.
    Have they just suddenly forgot their other rule ?
    I don’t know, they are pretty schmart.

      1. She said, “I am going to tell [the police] that there is an African American man threatening my life.”

        1. Is he not african american ?
          Is he not a man ?
          Did he not threaten her ? By his own admission ?

          If you do not wish to be accused of something – do not do it.

            1. He was screaming at her. Paul noted he can whoop 3 men with bats.
              He told her she wouldn’t like what he was going to do.
              She could be dead right now, afdter rape, we know this is the usual pattern, perhaps more prevalent than execution by cop.
              We live in a rape culture.
              They were alone in the wooded area.

              Her life did in fact flash before her eyes. So yeah, he threatened her life.

            2. He threatened her. The threat was clear and non specific. A reasonable person could particularly a woman alone in the park with her dog could perceive that as a threat to her dog and her life.

              If someone points a gun at you – is that a threat to your life ?
              If so then you understand that there is no requirement for a specific verbal threat.

              Christian said do as I demand or you will not like it.

              That meets the standard to legitimize the 911 call.

              1. Nope. He didn’t threaten her life.

                She wanted him to stop recording her and he didn’t comply, so she called 911.

                1. “Nope. He didn’t threaten her life.”
                  Been over this.

                  Mr. Cooper has one legitimate threat he could make – leash your dog or I call the police”.
                  That is not the threat he made.

                  He did threaten an outcome that she would not like.

                  That is legally sufficient for her to be in fear for her life under the circumstances.
                  The approximate standard is the reasonable suspicion of a reasonable person – that is a low standard.

                  Whether you like it or not – she was telling the truth.

                  It is not necescary for you to beleive he intended to kill her for her report to be truthful.

                  “She wanted him to stop recording her and he didn’t comply, so she called 911.”

                  True, but this is significant in what way ?

                  I do not know NY law. In my state you can legally video a person in public without their consent,
                  But you can not record audio without consent.

                  Then there is the separate issue of publishing. It is likely that some form of consent was required to publish the video. I am not strongly familiar with that law, But law restricting publishing of others without their permission exists.

                  There might be some situations where their is implied consent. and public figures are treated differently – that does not apply here.

                  But it is crystal clear that Amy refused Christian consent to record her.
                  That clearly revokes permission to publish.

                  1. “But it is crystal clear that Amy refused Christian consent to record her.”

                    He was recording in a public space. Think Ramsey Orta. And no one (other than you, AFAIK) is claiming that he didn’t have the right to publish the video.

                    Spin it any which way you like, he didn’t threaten her life and she knows it. She knew it then, and she knows it now. But she did threaten him. We have the video and audio.

                    1. “And no one (other than you, AFAIK) is claiming that he didn’t have the right to publish the video.”

                      So unless Amy files a lawsuit – which even if she wins, she can not get much from – Christian is unlikely to be worth as much as the damage to her, so absent that your conclusion is it must be legal ?

                      I guess that films seek releases from anyone they film – because doing so is fun ?

                      I guess that movies and documentaries that use pictures of the public blurr identifiable people because its friday ?

                    2. He threatened her. There is zero doubt about that.

                      If you personally choose to beleive that Threat did not rise to the level of threatening her life – I am OK with that. The threat was clear but not specific.
                      At the same time because it is not specific, I am OK with Amy concluding that her life was threatened. The legal threashold necescary for her to do so was met.

                      The best evidence that she did not beleive her life was threatened is her failure to retreat.

                      But the SJW generations are not taught to retreat, they are taught to confront and when that fails to call in higher authority.

                    3. Yes, her threat is specific – I will call the police.

                      You seem to be having a problem with threats – you seem to think that either Threats are universally allowed or universally prohibited.

                      That is false. Christian was perfectly free to threaten to call the police.
                      Had he threatened that – there would be no argument about the legitimacy of his conduct.
                      He would still be a Karen – as Amy is, but he would not be dancing close to a crime, and he would not be a vigilantee.

                      He made a clear but not specific threat, and then followed that with an act to follow through on the threat that was NOT the one act that was clearly allowed – calling the police.

                      Amy made a clear and specific threat that she was allowed to make and followed through doing something she was allowed.

                  2. He did threaten an outcome that she would not like.
                    Apparently it was not sufficiently not to her liking to keep her from advancing on the man. He had to ask her to stay away from him.

                    The evidence shows the threatening is pure fantasy on your part.

                    1. His threat is in his own record of the incident.

                      Are you saying that Christian is lying about himself to make himself look bad ?

                    2. When she walked closer to him she was trying to reduce her fear and the threat, and get him to stop recording and he didn’t. He didn’t back up or budge at all. So she backed away, while watching him, 20 feet away.
                      That makes your story weak, and insufficient.
                      If he had complied she may have been relieved, but he wasn’t cooperating with her. She of course took that as meaning she had no control, so more fear ensued.
                      I’m not saying her choice was wise, nor even reasonable to expect he would comply with her, but when she saw he wouldn’t be nice she was back to fear and more of it.

                      Remember he was yelling at her before he started video. He said he tried to get her dog, and probably lied about the dog rummaging around since he also said she grabbed the dog right away, so it was at her feet then. That certainly alarmed her, as she stated to NBCnews.

                      So, no, her going toward him and telling him to stop recording wasn’t a woman not in fear, it was her last shot to not be afraid, to see if this man was going to be nice about things. If she could relax and not be a rape victim or not get beaten – all alone, while he had doggie treats and a frame that could whoop 3 men with bats as Paul bragged.

                    3. Shakdi D – if she didn’t want to be a rape victim she should not gone in the Ramble with a dog on the loose. I said I saw Christian’s pic and it looked like he could take 3 guys with bats. Not a brag, just an opinion.

                    4. Wow!

                      Paul, if someone points their phone at you – Run as fast as you can.
                      Ir you are going to be the next Amy Cooper.

                    5. She had more than one opportunity to leash her dog and walk away. Christian Cooper didn’t advance on her and, in fact, asked her to keep her distance, as she moved closer to him. A would-be rapist wouldn’t have asked her to leash her dog and/or take it to another spot.

                      Any woman walking in Central Park would do well to remain in areas where there are a number of other people, rather than wandering into a secluded area.

                    6. “She had more than one opportunity to leash her dog and walk away. Christian Cooper didn’t advance on her and, in fact, asked her to keep her distance, as she moved closer to him.”

                      All true. Anyone claim Amy had done everything right ?

                      “A would-be rapist wouldn’t have asked her to leash her dog and/or take it to another spot.”

                      I do not beleive Christian is a rapist. That does not mean that men who threaten women should not be treated as a threat.

                      What is your expertise with respect to what would be rapists would do ?

                      “Any woman walking in Central Park would do well to remain in areas where there are a number of other people, rather than wandering into a secluded area.”

                      all women should live in constant fear ?
                      What gives you the right to decide for others what they should do to feel safe ?

                      Check keep ticking off the sexist boxes.

                      I have noted before Amy is not perfect, nor is Christian.
                      This should have died without interest.

                      People are not perfect and most do not handle stress and confrontation well.
                      I accept that and do not hold either Amy or Christian to impossible standards.
                      My major beef with Christian is what he did AFTER all of this, that resulted in Ruining Amy’s life. That was not done under stress.

                      But what about you ? You have the time to think before you post.
                      And yet you don’t.

                    7. “Apparently it was not sufficiently not to her liking to keep her from advancing on the man. He had to ask her to stay away from him.”

                      So ? Both of them engaged in a wide variety of conduct that was rude and offensive.

                      Amy was free to ask that he stop recording her. She was also free to threaten to call the police. But it was improper to tie the two to gather. Bad conduct – not a crime.

                      Advancing on him – bad idea, not a crime. Videoing a private person who is not doing anything illegal – bad idea, not a crime.
                      Publishing it – probably not a crime, but near certainly illegal. Christian is probably safe – because his net worth is not as much as the cost of the lawsuit.

                      “The evidence shows the threatening is pure fantasy on your part.”


                      There are two clear threats. Neither are a fantasy.

                    8. “Christian is probably safe – because his net worth is not as much as the cost of the lawsuit.”

                      I don’t believe that is necessarily so. Lawyers can take things on contingency. Even if it is a very iffy case a lawyer might try for a settlement. The lawyer gets a third even if all he had to do was write a couple of threatening letters. Let’s say Christian has $100,000 at risk and the lawyer settles for $30,000. That can be a quick $10,000.

                    9. It would not be quick, and people with assets as small as christian’s go bankrupt, before settlement.

                      A multimillion dollar judgement was awarded against Bernie Goetz,
                      no one has collected a dime.

                    10. “It would not be quick, and people with assets as small as christian’s go bankrupt, before settlement.”

                      I assume you have heard of nuisance suits.

                    11. “A would-be rapist wouldn’t have asked her to leash her dog and/or take it to another spot.”

                      A would be rapist IMO would do exactly what ______ did. After screaming at her and checking her reaction and figure, he takes out his phone and gets the evidence he needs, before the rape. He’s getting after effects film too, but what he’s really getting is ‘proof’ of his ‘innocence’.

                      Good so now he has the phone evidence. So he carries out his evil deed and…

                      Well maybe he never is a suspect, but if he ever becomes a suspect he shows his phone video. Suddenly a million liberals find him certainly innocent of everything. NY Central Park area could never get a conviction, let alone any lib not screaming police abuse.

                      He has gotten away with it. The very things you say ‘wouldn’t’ indeed they actually would, as all you have proven with your immense standard of logic.

    1. The rest of the thread:

      Lara Bazelon
      May 27
      Replying to
      The man’s crime? Asking Amy to follow the rules by leashing her dog. Amy did call the cops and make the false accusations, her tone increasingly hysterical, while she nearly strangled her dog.

      Lara Bazelon
      May 27
      The man recorded her, so her lie is plain. But what if he hadn’t? What if he had stayed when the police arrived and tried to explain? Who would the police have likely believed?

      Lara Bazelon
      May 27
      Herein lies a fundamental problem with #BelieveWomen. As a criminal defense attorney who believes in due process and who has represented a number of falsely accused black men, this hashtag and the premise behind it has always made me deeply uncomfortable.

      Lara Bazelon
      May 27
      Understand this: Amy Cooper is not an outlier. White women leveling dubious accusations of black men of assaulting them, often sexually, dates back to the 1600s. There are famous cases and books: The Scottsboro Boys, To Kill a Mockingbird.

      Lara Bazelon
      May 27
      But there are the unknown regular occurrences of it. I know because it is, sadly, part of my legal practice. Today. In 2020.

      1. Of course there are far more cases of actual rape and death in the same circumstances, and the msm under reports, and many times does not report at all.
        Don’t deny it, I have proof. The FBI has proof.
        Local papers hide it, so the city area can prosper.

        She could have been raped and dead without her phone, and she knows it. We do too.

      1. That is correct.

        And all Christian needed to do was call the police and report and unleashed dog and walk away.

        1. It was an error on his part to believe that the two of them could resolve the matter like adults and without police intervention.

          And FTR, he wasn’t trying to steal her dog. He was trying to induce her to leash it.


          “Dogs must not dig, chase, or harm wildlife, damage Park property, or interfere with other Park users.”

          1. “It was an error on his part to believe that the two of them could resolve the matter like adults and without police intervention.”

            The probability of the police intervening to enforce a park rule is low.
            It is likely he knew that.

            “And FTR, he wasn’t trying to steal her dog. He was trying to induce her to leash it.”

            By threatening to lure it away from her.
            And part of that “inducement” was her fear that he would poison it.

            “Dogs must not dig, chase, or harm wildlife, damage Park property, or interfere with other Park users.”

            Park rule, not law, enforced by the park service – or not enforced at all. Maybe by the police, Not even a summary offense.

            Regardless pretty much the defintion of a Karen is an nosy person who takes on the authority they do not have to enforce rules.

            If Christian had a problem with Amy’s conduct his ONLY legitimate remedy was the police or the park service. There is no private personal power to enforce park rules.
            You may not legitimately induce compliance by threat or anything beyond a report to authorities.

            Any threat beyond that is illegitimate and may constitute a crime. Amy perceived that threat as a threat of harm to her and/or her dog. She has reasonable suspicion – a very low legal standard that Christian intended her or her dog harm based on his threat.

            That means that though her call is on the hysterical side, it is otherwise truthful and legitimate.

            Absolutely she had the opportunity to and should have walked away, that is on her.
            In fact She had an obligation to do so – but that obligation does not preclude her from the 911 call.

            Further Christian had a similar obbligation to withdraw from the confrontation.
            He too was free to call the police or park service – and who knows maybe they would actually enforce the rule.

            But that is all he had the right to do.
            He had no right to threaten her.

            1. So hard to find. /sarc


              And this:


              Visit Responsibly

              Thousands of dogs and their owners visit Central Park
              every week and are part of the vibrant community that
              makes Central Park a special place. You can help us to
              keep the Park clean and safe by respecting these rules:
              Dogs must be on-leash at all times from 9:00 am
              until 9:00 pm.
              Dogs must be under the control of their owner at
              all times.
              Dogs must have a NYC license tag and valid rabies tag.
              Dogs must not dig, chase, or harm wildlife; damage Park
              property; or interfere with other Park users.
              Always clean up after your dog, including dog hair that
              you brush off in the Park.
              Please respect signs, fences, and red flags that
              may indicate temporary closures due to restoration,
              maintenance, or weather conditions.

              ***These rules are part of the NYC legal code; dog owners
              may be fined for any violation.***

              1. Please READ your own link.
                Do not presume because laws exist they say what you hope they do.

                “Properly licensed dogs, wearing a license tag and vaccinated against rabies pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and City of New York and restrained by a leash or other restraint not exceeding six feet in length, may be brought into a park”

                1). READ, this constitutes PERMISSION not prohibition.
                2). Retraint is NOT limited to Leash. Amy holding the dog’s collar meets the requirements for Restraint.

                “Unless specifically prohibited herein or by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”), properly licensed dogs wearing a license tag and vaccinated against rabies pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and City of New York may be unleashed within a designated park or designated portions of a park from the park’s opening until 9:00 a.m. and from 9:00 p.m. until the park closes”

                Again READ, there is no violation unless the owner refuses to leash the dog when requested by a police officer or NYPS officer.
                There is no violation for failure to follow the request of a Birder.

                1. You need to review Christian’s complaints and revisit the information provided about applicable penalties. It is you who needs to READ…

                  1. I am not interested in Christian’s complaints.
                    Christian’s personal opinions are not facts.

                    The number of facts in this is fairly small.
                    There is a very limited amount of information Christian has provided that is relevant.
                    That is primarily is first account of events.
                    That is not inherently fact either, but we have almost no account from Amy of the events prior to the video.

                    We can however assume that when Christian describes what occured in a manner that reflects badly on him – he is likely accurate.

                    We also can assume that when Chrisitian’s later accounts contradict each other that there are problems.

                    The most relevant points –
                    Christian’s threat to Amy and her Dog and his actions to effect that threat are from HIS account. I presume that is correct. O doubt he would lie to make himself look bad.

                  2. Why do I care about “the penatlies” ?

                    The penalties are for violations of the law.

                    What matters from your link is

                    What is the law,
                    and who can enforce it.

                    This law is written as a sequence of things that are allowed,
                    That is a really bad way to write a law.
                    Because the norm, and possibly a constitutional requirement is that everything is allowed except what is prohibited. Read the constitution.

                    But even assuming that what is written is all that is permitted – which is a poor assumption.

                    The definition of a leashed dog is broad, and we have no actual evidence of a time that Amy did not meet that.

                    But even if she did not the statute is written so that only police and NYPS can enforce it. Not Christian.

                    Further it is als written so that a violation occurs NOT when you engage in conduct outside what is permitted, but when you are asked by the police or NYPS to follow the law and refuse.

                    That did not occur, so Amy never violated the law.

                    The law is what is written – not what you wish it to be.

                    In the actual event Amy was doing something not permitted, she was still as this law is written not in violation until she was asked by police to leash her dog and refused.

                    Last, I saw no reference to “the ramble” in this law. that means the ramble specific restrictions are not law, they are rules. There remains no enforcement power beyond removal.

                    Any ambiguity in the law must favor the individual.

                    Laws are read like computer programs, or mathematical or logical proofs,
                    You can not make assumptions about anything not specified. You can not extend beyond what is actually written.

                    It is what it says, not what you wish it to.

                    And it has to be this way otherwise everyone will find a different meaning.
                    And that is lawlessness.

                    1. “But even if she did not the statute is written so that only police and NYPS can enforce it. Not Christian”

                      What makes you think asking somebody to follow the law is prohibited?
                      What makes you think offering a stray dog a treat is prohibited?

                    2. John Say – two things. 1) Are you Canadian and 2) you need to research more. I gave you the rules and you can be ticketed.

                    3. “John Say – two things. 1) Are you Canadian”

                      Quit speculating about things that are irrelevant – stick to the actual facts they are all that matters, and you are having more than enough trouble with those facts, Broadening the scope of this debate has served you horribly so far.

                      I am not canadian.
                      Nothing about me matters. This is not about me. It is about the facts.

                      “2) you need to research more. I gave you the rules and you can be ticketed.”
                      I am presuming that what you are trying to say is that Amy can be cited for having an unleashed dog in the Ramble.
                      That is true – based on the Code provided if she is asked by a police officer or an NYPS officer to leash her dog and she refuses, the can be cited.
                      That sequence of events did not occur.
                      The law that was provided does not offer any other means to cite Amy.

                      I already speculated that Christian’s vigilantism might be driven by the Failure of the police and Park to enforce the rules as he wanted.
                      It appears to me increasingly likely that is the case.

                      Christian has pretty much stated his actions were premeditated.
                      Essentially that he has been going into the Ramble with dog treats waiting for just this type of oportunity, and the hope to bring public attention to the Ramble and get the Police and PS to enforce the rules. Amy was just the unfortunate victim that fell into his trap.

                    4. More blah, blah, blah from John Say, who — by the way — isn’t a lawyer.

                      Read the information cited and decide for yourself. Don’t take John’s word for it. And when you read it, remember that this took place in the Ramble where dogs much be leashed because of the habitat. This isn’t just about a dog being leashed, but the damage that dogs may do when off-leash in this particular area. Check out the related code.

                    5. “that this took place in the Ramble where dogs much be leashed because of the habitat.”

                      It seems things take a long time if they ever are able to seep into your brain. John stated at the beginning that Amy was wrong in not leashing her dog. You seem to have missed that so how can you understand everything that followed?

                    6. There are several points relative to the dog being unleashed that are being debated.

                      First, it is absolutely true that Central Park has a RULE, that dogs can not be unleashed in the ramble. Amy’s dog was unleashed in the Ramble. She violated that rule.
                      I have NEVER said otherwise.

                      But lots of people have gotten their panties in a bunch over whether this is a rule or a law, and what scale of law, and how is it enforced, and …….

                      I have made a few errors with respect to that. I could not find actual municipal law regarding parks, dogs and leashes and incorrectly presumed that there was only rules not laws.

                      Rules are enforceable, but generally only by removal.

                      As best as I can tell so far the requirment that dogs are leashed at all times in the Ramble is a RULE not a law. The statutes that someone linked do not specifically cover the ramble.

                      The law permits dogs in all NYPS parks to be off the leash outside of park hours.

                      I do not know the time this confrontation occured, But Christian’s suggestion that Amy could take the dog to other parts of the park strongly suggests the confrontation was during the time that dogs are generally allowed off the leash in NYPS parks.

                      But that is an educated guess not a fact. ‘

                      The law was actually quite interesting.

                      First contra claims by others Amy holding the dog by its collar, meets the laws requirement that the dog is leashed.

                      More interestingly the Law is unusually written as a list of what is permitted, Rather than what is prohibited. That is strange. I rarely see that. As a rule of thumb – flowing from the constitution the US pattern is that what is not explicitly prohibited is permitted.
                      That means a list of permitted actions may not prohibit anything.

                      But I assumed for the argument that Amy was not free to do what was not permitted.

                      The most interesting thing about the law, is that it is written such that a prosecutable violation only occurs when you refuse direction by a police officer or the park to leash your dog.

                      In fact it would be pretty easy to argue that the real law is really quite simple and all the paragraphs are nearly meaningless and the entire NYPS leash law actually boils down to you must leash your dog when asked by Police or the Park regardless of location regardless of time of day.

                      As written anytime you refuse direction of police of park to leash your dog, you are in violation, and can be fined – even jailed for one day.

                      Regardless, it is also clear – as is expected, that Christian has absolutely zero authority to enforce the ordinance himself and the law is pretty clear on that.

                      As expected the only remedy available to Christian for Amy’s bad conduct was to call the police of Park. And that is the only legitimate threat he could make

                    7. “I have made a few errors with respect to that. I could not find actual municipal law regarding parks, dogs and leashes and incorrectly presumed that there was only rules not laws. “

                      John, such errors are understandable because many laws can conflict and there are different sources for the rules. The rules can come from the city or Park Commission but they can also be made by private concerns that are made up of groups of people that help to care and finance multiple parts of Central Park.

                      A few on this blog think they are smarter than they are, but have difficulty seeing past their presumed expertise and don’t recognize it. They do not think except superficially and then they believe any deeper thoughts can’t possibly exist. That is one of the things that makes them stupid.

                      I take note that one is trying to bolster his intellectual standing based on a job description. He fails miserably because we only know him by what he says and generally that is pretty stupid. He takes the side of the Christian ‘Karen’ because he is a ‘Karen’ himself and doesn’t know it. He acts like a ‘Karen’ on the blog and even threatens like a ‘Karen’.

                    8. The point I was trying to make is my interest is in Facts, Logic Reason.

                      I do not make many mistakes, because of practice.

                      But I have no chip on my shoulder I do presume I am always right.

                      The odds of your getting me to reconsider my libertarian principle is near zero.

                      Not because I am dogmatic, but because I have had decades of arguments and debates over those. All the easy victories have been had. If I make a mistake today in areas of principle it is because I was lazy or because I tried a new argument that did not work, and I will just return to one of the older ones that did.

                      And that is precisely how debate is suposed to work. You argue your positions and you face the most and best challenges you can, you are forced to defend, and you either fail and correct, of your arguments hold up.
                      Wash rinse repeat.

                      But this Amy/Christian thing is new. I expect to make mistakes.
                      My ego is not invested in perfection.

                      Contra Paul I am not emotionally invested in anything here.
                      Prove me wrong and I will correct.

                      I have made some minor mistakes – and corrected them.
                      If I have made larger mistakes – I would correct them.
                      Even if that resulted in a different judgement or outcome.

                      The objective or debate is to get the correct result, not my result.

                      I am difficult, stubborn, … you persuade me with facts, logic reason.
                      Not some large bag of fallacies.

                    9. John Say – now you are trying to defend yourself, that is pathetic. You are humble bragging. Also pathetic.

                      Amy needs to have the dog on the leash when she enters the Ramble. Full stop. End of. All the facts are there. Deal with them.

                    10. I presume hat you use the same logic in other scenarious.

                      as an example:

                      George Floyd committed a crime, he is the proximate cause of everything else that happened, His death is on him, Full stop. End of. All the facts are there. Deal with them.

                      I keep trying to tell you facts, logic reason.

                      When you make decisions that way you will not end up with obviously self contradicatory results when applied to nearly identical fact patterns.

                      When your argument produces an outcome you do not agree with in a different incident with the same fact pattern – then the problem is with your argument or your facts.

                      I used the hypothetical of a child and a lolipop to try to make that clear to you.
                      Maybe the real world floyd instance that has the country on fire will better connect.

                    11. I am not aware that lollipops can be used to lure cows.
                      as such the analogy is not a match.

                    12. “The odds of your getting me to reconsider my libertarian principle is near zero.”

                      John, where did I say I wanted you to reconsider your principles?

                    13. I am very disappointed at the quality of the arguments of most people on this blog.
                      That is not leveled at you. I have actually had a protracted debate with you a long time ago, possibly under a different name – the law of supply and demand is called Say’s law, after Jean Batiste Say. We disagreed vigorously on a small point, but your arguments we very strong.

                      But you could take 2/3 of the posts here and toss them as obvious fallacies.
                      I am not sure most of the posters here know what a fallacy is.

                      And you can not find the truth when you can not make and recognize valid arguments.

                    14. Still not an argument

                      Criticizing the piss poor quality of your arguments is not bragging.

                      I have plenty to actually brag about if i wanted to.

                    15. John Say – I was commenting on your comment, much like this one where you humble brag again. Your ego is going to explode if you don’t take care.

                    16. Still not an argument.

                      My ego is doing fine,

                      My ego is not going to grow arguing against an endless and repetitive stream of logical fallacies.

                      Even your fallacies are illogical.

                    17. John Say – good to hear that you are holding on to your ego. However, I am concerned when you start hurling ad hominems.

                    18. When you repeatedly spew fallacies – the same ones over and over, when you engage in ad hominem – which you have from the start, when you offer repeatedly something as evidence of law that clearly is not, you are being dishonest.

                      one of the reason that fallacies are improper argument is that they always cause the argument to degenerate – usually to ad hominem.

                      Calling you dishonest is ad hominem – it is also true.
                      It is what happens when you refuse to stick to facts, logic reason.

                      I have resisted making any of this personal or attacking you – you have made this personal from the start. You do not seem to know how to argue without making it personal

                      There must be some type of debate club or something like that in your area.
                      Go find it, and learn how to make legitimate logical arguments.

                      You education has ill served you. Aparently you were never taught critical thinking.
                      You should demand whatever you paid back.

                    19. ” I have actually had a protracted debate with you a long time ago, possibly under a different name ”

                      Yes under the name of Dhili if I remember the spelling well enough and thank you for your nice comment. I appreciate you as well. yes I am familiar with Say though perhaps not to your extent. I have read some things written by Thomas Sowell on Say and am familiar with Jean-Baptist Say recognizing who you were when you first posted under John Say.

                    20. I am not litterally trying to be anonymous.

                      Anyone with minimal research skills can find “dox” me, and I do not care.

                      But I have a sibling that is a sociopath and I do not want to make it easy for her.

                      She has already ludicrously accused me of murder.
                      One of the problems with relatives who are sociopaths is that
                      Even bat shit accusations are beleived when they are made by close relatives.

                      It is possible that the crazier the allegation the more it is beleived – because it is hard to beleive that people would make crazy allegations.

                      Regardless, Sociopaths thrive on information.

                    21. I want to note two other points.

                      I go to a great deal of trouble to be overly precise in my claims.
                      That takes time, though I have done this for a long time and it gets easier.

                      Most people aren;t and I have specifically argued that a significant problem with this entire mess is the expectation that ordinary people behave perfectly even normally, much less under stress.

                      If I were trying to “white night” Amy – I would have to rewrite most of what she said.
                      Because though she is more articular than Christian, he remarks are badly presented.

                      But that is how real people behave in stress.

                      I am trying to do clean simple logical fact based analysis of this AFTER THE FACT.
                      That is much easier than getting things right as they happen.

                      I am also trying to be accurate and precise to minimize the number of times I have to correct myself and to get analaysis and conclusion right.

                      But I make mistakes – we all do. I will tenanciously stick to what I believe to be the facts. until I stand corrected. When an actual error is identified – as there is real law on dogs being leashed in the park that turned out to be somewhat favorable for Amy and not so good for Christian. though not quite as good as my assumption after some but not enough research that these were just rules, not laws. I probably should have known better, it is NYC after all.

                      Regardless, I make mistakes, I try to make that infrequent, and when identified I correct all or parts of my argument as needed.

                      I am not wedded to the conclusions I reach. I am wedded to the conclusions the facts dictate. Change the facts – and the conclusions change.

                      There is one big area of uncertainty in this issue.

                      The only version of events prior to the video is Christians written after the fact version.

                      My arguements have relied HEAVILY on the assumption that Christian did not report a version of events that is more harmful to him than what actually happened.

                      That is likely, but not certain. Christian appears to be calm under stress on the video, though Amy claims he had previously screamed at her. But Christian is inarticluate and he could have posted a narrative that is more damaging to him that reality, and not understand that.

                    22. “I go to a great deal of trouble to be overly precise in my claims.”

                      John, I appreciate that and so did Cindy who made a comment earlier on what you had written. That is why I spend time when I reply to you. I value greatly what you say even if I rarely disagree.. The problem is that some are too stupid to be precise and your preciseness aggravates them because they can’t keep up.

                      That is why they argue the tangents and stupidly so because they cannot read behind the words. There is one person on this list who has proven this over and over again. He is worried about how he appears to others and thinks the same fear exists in all other people. Those that know what they are talking about and understand the arguments pro and con don’t have to worry. Their responses speak for themselves.

                    23. I try hard (and sometimes fail) not to call others stupid.
                      More often I call arguments Stupid, it is even harder not to do that.

                      If Paul thinks I am “emotionally invested” in something it is not in Amy, but in eviscerating stupid arguments – regardless of which “side” they fall on.

                      I comment because I enjoy it – that is why most people do what they do.
                      It is more fun to pepper the argument with adjectives – like idiotic. And sometimes I go for that fun. But it does not make the argument better.
                      In fact people should always strip out all the adjectives from an argument. What is left is the real argument, and often nothing is left.

                      But people are very touchy and I have driven innumerably people apoplectic by pointing out that an argument was stupid.

                      Way too many people think that

                      “1 + 1 = 7 is a stupid argument”
                      is the same as
                      “you are wrong, because you are stupid”

                      Paul and atleast on Anonymous, should look in the mirror when talking about emotional investment.

                      There is absolutely nothing new being argued. Just near literal repetitions of the same fallacies that were present at the start.

                    24. John Say – you are reading things into Amy’s behavior, which makes you emotionally invested.

                    25. “John Say – you are reading things into Amy’s behavior, which makes you emotionally invested.”

                      Read what I have posted – I have explicitly NOT read anything into Amy’s words or actions.

                      The standard that must be met for her report to the police to be a prosecutor false report is that Christians words and/or actions must not reach reasonable suspicion that her life is in danger – that is an incredibly low standard.
                      Christian issued an unspecified threat. That is sufficient.

                      There is no “reading into Amy’s behavior”. Amy’s report to the police requires a specific standard of proof. Christian remarks/behavior meet that.

                      Most of my arguments are based on Christian, not Amy, or are based on observable facts – like that Amy’s hand was on the dogs collar during the video.

                    26. The floyd family is making statements regarding the events that occured to Floyd.

                      Are the Floyds not emotionally invested ?

                      Does their emotional investment make true statements false or false statements true ?

                      My emotional state which you clearly can not perceive is irrelevant.

                      Further this is a different fallacy.
                      You are essentially arguing that I am wrong, because I continue to not accept your fallacious arguments.

                      That is an argument that any party can make in any argument any time.
                      It is always a fallacy.

                    27. “I try hard (and sometimes fail) not to call others stupid.”

                      John, If I am dealing with a slow but polite person I frequently want to hear their arguments because they represent a significant portion of the population. I will even help them and keep my discussions simple. However, there are those like anonymous that are truly Stupid. They aren’t necessarily slow and might even have somewhat of an “education” more like schooling but they demonstrate a gotcha mentality along with arrogance far in excess of any intellectual abilities. We have one such individual on this blog that I have called Anonymous the Stupid and The Brainless Wonder. In my world it is proper to do so with this type of person even though my world is very polite and filled with exceptionally intelligent people.

                      I like Paul but he wants to think of himself as some sort of outlaw or Robin Hood on the blog and that is OK but he went a bit out of character in this latest debate. Most of the nasty ones on this blog have memorized talking points and they will not go beyond those talking points because they can’t. When a discussion leads them to not have a ‘talking point answer’ they run away only to repeat the same talking point over and over again in the future. In general they have no firm principles and when asked what their endpoint is they have none or can’t get there with their talking points.

                    28. I come and go here and mostly do not get a sense of the personalities of the regulars

                      I spend more time at “The New Moderate” But there are only about 5 regulars there.

                    29. “I am not wedded to the conclusions I reach. I am wedded to the conclusions the facts dictate. Change the facts – and the conclusions change.”

                      John, you are pointing out another problem with some of the stupid people, one in particular. They are wedded to their conclusions and cannot adequately defend themselves or even admit to alternative points of view. No matter how they try they attempt to use anything but fact to prove their case and that makes them look stupid.

                    30. “Christian appears to be calm under stress on the video, though Amy claims he had previously screamed at her. ”

                      John, sometimes practice makes perfect and I believe Christian has been doing this for quite awhile. He is a ‘Karen’ even though he is entirely correct that dogs should be leashed in the bramble and elsewhere. I support leash laws but I don’t support his actions.

                    31. I beleive you are correct about Christian.
                      His FB post strongly imply he has done this before.

                      I would further note that increases the odds he is dangerous.

                      When you beleive your cause to be righteous. and you make plans to trap your opponents, it is a small step to “the ends justify the means”.

                      It is not hard to jump from
                      Planning to lure others dogs with treats and scare them.
                      Spicing the treats to punish the dog and the owner.
                      Poisoning the treat.

                      If you are sure you are right – make your case with words,
                      it is much harder to get yourself in trouble.

                      Amy broke a rule, maybe a minor law.

                      I think Christian committed a minor crime.
                      Probably not one he could get convicted on in NYC,
                      But that is still worse than breaking a rule.

                      He did so because he was so sure he was right.

                      Be very very careful about acting against others out of Righteousness.

                      Using a comparison to other current events,
                      George Floyd broke the law. I do not beleive there is disagreement on that.
                      His actual conduct was much more egregious than Amy Cooper’s.

                      But most of us understand that Georges Crime did not justify murdering him.

                      The Pattern with Floyd and the Coopers is nearly the same.

                      One violated a law the other enforced that law.

                      Why is it that Paul can not understand that if the police can not kill one lawbreaker,
                      Mr. Cooper can not threaten someone who broke a much less consequential rule.

                    32. John Say – the fact that you find Christian to be “dangerous” shows that you are emotionally invested.

                    33. People who plot to create conflict are likely dangerous.

                      Conflicts are rife with potential danger.
                      Much of the criticism leveled at Amy is that she endangered Christian.
                      A claim that is only true if the NYPD is incredibly racist and Amy counted on that.

                    34. “More blah, blah, blah from John Say, who — by the way — isn’t a lawyer.”
                      Once again – you keep trying to take the focus off the facts (and even the law).
                      Everything about me is irrelevant – arguments like “he is not a lawyer” are ad hominem,
                      “Arguing the person, not the facts” and they are fallacious.

                      I have not as of yet heard a lawyer much less one specializing in codes speak on this.
                      BTW I am a professional – in fact I a professional in multiple spheres.
                      One of those is codes, though not specifically park codes. And I have argued many times in Administrative Law Courts for clients over municipal courts, and I have a very good track record.

                      If I am wrong about the law – cite that. You cut and pasted a large block of law, but you do not seem to have bothered to read it.

                      You can not say “there is a law about parks and dogs and leashes” – therefore my guess about that law is correct.

                      “Read the information cited and decide for yourself. Don’t take John’s word for it.”
                      Absolutely, read it carefully.

                      Point out where in this law it confers enforcement powers on Christian ?
                      In fact as written you can not be sanctioned until you refuse to comply with a direction by the police of NYPS to leash your dog.

                      “And when you read it, remember that this took place in the Ramble where dogs much be leashed because of the habitat. This isn’t just about a dog being leashed, but the damage that dogs may do when off-leash in this particular area. Check out the related code.”

                      You confuse law with justifications.
                      The law you cited says nothing about the Ramble.
                      The specifically proscribed locations are not in the law, they are on park rules pages.
                      Park rules are not laws, even if one is an attempt to paraphrase the other.

                      Why the law exists is an entirely different discussion.

                      You violate the law, when you actually violate the law as written.
                      Not when you offend the rationale for the law.

                      Rationale’s are fungible and not law.

                      The Ramble is not nature – nature does not need protection from us.
                      We need protection from nature.

                      It is a habitat for birds. That is a human decision. It could just as easily be a place to let dogs run. The point is that it is a human creation for purposes humans have chosen.
                      There is no magic to those choices. There is no inherent truth.

                      Amy is obligated to obey the law as written, because it is the law that we chose.
                      The Ramble as a bird habitat was a human choice.

                      And guess what, the failure of NYPS and the police to enforce the law is also a human choice.

                      If all the writings that you reference that are not the law, mattered on iota – the law would be being vigorously enforce.

                      Just to be clear the later part of this is speculation. It appears to be a fact that these laws are not being enforced. It is probable that is the case because the “purpose” or the laws is not truly valued. But that is conjecture.

                    35. I know it’s hard for you, but do try to keep up Allan.

                      If you go back and read all of the comments, maybe you’ll be able to grasp what’s being said. I doubt it, but it would be a good place for you to start. You’re clearly missing something

                    36. All you have to do is read what John Say repeated many times. I know its hard for you to remember something and then have to read about something else. It’s OK. First focus on what he says about and Amy. When you get that down pat call forhelp.

              2. Next – the first link you provide appears to be to actual code.

                The rest are meaningless. The paraphrasing of the law by the NYPS is not the law.
                Hopefully the paraphrase is accurate. Regardless in a prior reply I excepted a few of the relevant sections of the actual law.

                Contra the quote you provided I did NOT find a general prohibition of unleashed dogs in NY parks.

                The two sections cited are grants of permission, not prohibitions. they would automatically be extended by local rules or other grants of permission.

                The prohibition for unleashed dogs in the ramble still appears to be a Central Park rule – not a regulation or ordinance.

                If you are going to get into a pissing contest over “the law” you must get it accurate.

                In the US the rule of thumb – somewhat enshrined in the constitution is that everything is permitted except that which is prohibited.

                You are unlikely to succeed in legally reasoning from a lack of permission to prohibition.

                  1. “What an ass.”

                    You refer to another as an ass because he is quite accurate in what he says and his understanding of the underlying question at hand.

                    His big mistake is in believing you have enough intellect to understand the discussion and separate emotional arguments from real ones. You don’t.

                    1. John Say isn’t as accurate as you and he would obviously like to believe, but there’s no point in wasting much time on either one of you. John Say (by his comment count to this thread — 20% of almost 800 comments) is more invested in this topic than most, for whatever (crazy?) reason.

                      Perhaps some of this will get sorted out in court. We’ll see what happens. In the meantime, much of what is said is just some random guy’s opinion on a blog. Saying that something is a fact doesn’t necessarily make it one, as most people understand.

                      There are lawyers who see this case in the same light. Lara Bazelon is one of them. Her book “Rectify” is excellent.


                    2. “John Say isn’t as accurate”

                      John Say is very much on the money. I think this is too far above your paygrade.

                    3. If my remarks are not accurate – that is trivial to address.

                      Facts are facts.

                      My posts are entirely replies.

                      If you do not want me to reply – make accurate posts.

                      Are you looking to join Paul in practicing psychiatry over the internet ?

                      Do you really beleive that assorted forms of ad hominem are credible arguments ?

                      Facts, logic, reason – that is all I ask.

                      There is a very small set of relevant facts to this incident.

                      It would be nice if we had a recording to cover the initial period of the confrontation – but we only have Christian’s FB post. Still we can presume he is accurate when his discription of his own words and actions are not good for him.

                      Your mental state and mine – are not relevant.

                      Before I expressed the tautology that what is true is true even if it is said by Hitler.
                      In the same vein what is true is true even if it is said by Manson.

                      I do not need to defend my mental state – it is irrelevant.

                      The facts are what they are. For the most part you do not address the facts, and instead keep trying to attack things that have nothing to do with this.

                      I have shared some of who I am merely to demonstrate how stupid Paul was to pretend he knew me.

                      But my life, my thoughts, my mental state. my ideolgy, my race, my gender, are all irelevant to this debate – as are yours.

                      I do not like either Amy or Christian so the only dog I have in this fight is over the truth.

                      I do find it interesting that progressives have chosen AGAIN to side against women, and against the facts. in a conflict involving both women;’s and minority issues.

                      And I am curious as to how that decision will play out in the election.

                      Believe women is clearly progressive hypocrisy.

                    4. I think your Bazelton quites are incredible.

                      Absolutely there is a history – mostly in places like Montgomery Alabama of white Women levying accusations at black men.

                      No one should automatically be beleived.

                      At the same time accoring to progressives one in seven women are raped in their lifetime.

                      A few decades ago a white woman was brutally raped in Central Park.
                      And 5 black teens were falsely accused – but not by the white woman, but by the police
                      And her brutal rape was very real, and the failure of government to catch the actual perpitrator was not her fault.

                      Absolutely we still live in a world where black men must still fear encounters with the police.

                      And women alone in the park with their dog have good reason to fear strange and confrontive men.

                      But progressives have decided “fork women”.

                    5. John Say – didn’t those 5 yutes plead guilty to raping the woman, or at least some of them did?

                    6. You really are clueless.

                      Please watch any of the several movies about the Central Park 5.

                      Almost everyone on the exonerated list confessed to a crime we KNOW they did not commit.

                      Give the police enough time and they can get most everyone to confess to crimes that never happened.

                      The vast majority of criminal cases result in guilty pleas – why, because almost no one wins in Court – atleast 3 of the Central Park 5 were convicted – innocence sure did not help them. And it is well known that you will get a deal possibly as much as 10 times better if you do not go to trial.

                      Do you think an innocent person would take 1 year rather than ten (which is often time served) rather than go to trial and get 10 ?

                    7. John Say – but Flynn would not plead guilty if he were innocent, yet you claim 5 innocent yutes plead guilty but were innocent. Hunh.

                    8. “John Say – but Flynn would not plead guilty if he were innocent, yet you claim 5 innocent yutes plead guilty but were innocent. Hunh.”

                      I have said none of this.
                      Why have you drug Flynn into this.

                      Next atleast 3 of the central park 5 went to trial and were convicted. They did not plead guilty. I said this before.

                      Do we have to plow the same ground over and over?

                    9. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/26/insurance-executive-put-on-leave-after-tirade-in-central-park-against-african-american-bird-watcher/comment-page-2/#comment-1957598

                      Allan is “challenged” in so many ways. lol.

                      It’s not hard to link to the correct comment, but Allan does this:

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

                      Again, lol. You’re good for some laughs, buddy. And I don’t give two hoots what you think of me…, so save your breath.

                    10. “I don’t give two hoots what you think of me…, so save your breath.”

                      That is obvious, but it is not how I think about you that counts, it is how other intelligent people think about you that you should worry about. Being last in the class makes one hardened to comments on their intellectual ability so I don’t expect very much from you.

                    11. But you do seem to care what people think about you or you would not keep venturing into fallacy. Mast fallacies are attempts to make arguments about people not facts and logic.

                    12. More meaningless drivel from Allan. He can’t help himself. It’s pathetic.

                    13. Allan is one of those guys who tries to elevate himself by diminishing others. It’s obvious and sad.

                    14. “Allan is one of those guys who tries to elevate himself by diminishing others. ”

                      You are already diminished past the point of return. You are only useful to show where the lowest point of the curve is.

                    15. I hear lost of posters resorting to ad hominem, insults, mind reading,

                      I do not recall Allan among those.

                      Facts, logic reason.

                      If you find those insulting – the problem is with you.

                      You should never be insulted by a good argument.

                  2. Is that an argument ?

                    You provided the link. Do not bitch at me because the law is not what you would wish it to be.

                    If you do not want your arguments torn apart – stick to the facts and in this case the law, and make your arguments accordingly.

                    If it is “assholery” to point out that neither the facts, nor the actual law support your argument – then I am an ass.

                    Regardless, I am sticking to the facts.

                    1. “Regardless, I am sticking to the facts.” — John Say

                      Sure you are. Like the one in the following comment:


                      You said: “The dog is…leashed at the very start of the video.”

                      It isn’t. It wasn’t.

                      You’ve made other factual errors, as well, but I don’t have the time or interest, today, to point them out.

                    2. I have revised that statement to be more precise. And if you were Actually reading all the posts to follow them rather than trying to find rare imprecision that is subsequently corrected you would know that.

                      From the start of the video through the end Amy meets the requirements of the leash law for having her dog under control. She has her hand firmly on its collar.

                      If it is of absolute necescity for you to distinguish between leashed as commonly understood and leashed as defined by the law – then mea culpa.
                      The dog was not leashed as commonly understood. It was under control of its owner as required by law.

                      Absolutely there are one or two equally inconsequential factual errors that I have made.
                      While I try hard to be precise – specifically because I expect this kind of stuff from people like you, and because I am actually going to point out meaningful errors that you make.

                      But I am not perfect and I do not pretend to be.

                      I have corrected every error I have made as soon as I became aware of it – whether consequential or not.

                      For me this is an analysis of the relevant facts, not some third member measuring contest.

                      I am not the one who keep citing things that are paraphrases of the law, not the actual law, and worse not even the right law,

                      As well as cutting and pasting long sections that mean nothing except laws exist and have penalties.

                      I beleive you provided the link to the actual NYPS law, Go read the actually relevant secutions, instead of ranting about bad paraphrases of other laws that are in applicable or quoting large sections that do not describe either the requirments or the offense or who is authorized to enforce.

    1. Christian’s statement of facts in the interview contradicts on several points

      In his interveiw Christian says that he recorded Amy and her dog UNTIL she leashed the dog.

      The dog is in Amy’s control and leashed at the very start of the video.

      Christian says in the interview that he tossed out the treat so that Amy would have to leash the dog to get it away from the treat.

      That makes no sense and contradicts his published remarks.

      Most of Amy’s remarks sound like a maoist self criticism.
      Regardless she adds little to the facts.

        1. From the start to the end of the video the Dog’s collar is in Amy’s hand.

          The dog is not loose, it meets the legal requirements for “leashed”.

          1. John Say – the rules require a 6′ leash. Not holding on to its collar. Nice try, but no cigar.

            1. Please cite an actual statute. I have looked up the Central park rules.

              They are rules, not statues, there are no enforcement provisions and no references to law. That means we are not even dealing with a summary offense.
              The penalty would be removing the person from the park. Maybe banning them for repeated violations. It also means the police likely have little or no enforcement power

              This also re-inforces my speculation that Christian is engaged in premeditated vigilantism.

              My GUESS is that he has reported people before – found that there is no interest in enforcement and no penalty of consequence, so he has taken it on himself.

              As I have noted before the failure to enforce a law violates the social contract.
              Unenforced law is no law at all.
              Christian is essentially angry at NYPS because they created a rule to placate birders, but they are not enforcing it essentially nullifying it.

              This is all just more reason government should not mess in issues of values.
              I strongly suspect that the NYPS failure to enforce is a form of deliberate benign neglect.
              They have given birders what they wanted by posting a rule. and by not enforcing it they keep dog owners happy.

              And this has Christian pissed. Well he needs to take up his greivance with NYPS, not dog owners. A rule that is not enforced is not a rule.

              There is no definition of what constitutes a leash.

              I can see no reason at all why a hand on the collar of the dog is not sufficient control to comply with the leash rule

              I am sure that small dogs in carriers comply with leash rule.

              1. Paul may have gotten jumpy and blurted out his local ground owl rule..
                I’ll meow out now Paul.

                1. Please note a factual error I have made ?

                  Or a tangent that I have gone down on my own ?

                  Paul has assumed omniscience as well as clairvoyance and I have refuted his pretentions to know my thoughts or my life.

                  That was a tangent and irrelevant facts, but it was also dismembering a series of Paul’s fallacious arguments.

                  It is generally a bad idea to presume you know the thoughs or the life of another person on the internet. The odds of being wrong are far greater than being right.
                  And Paul was catastrophically wrong.

                  1. Again:

                    You need to review Christian’s complaints and revisit the information provided about applicable penalties. It is you who needs to READ…

                    1. AGAIN.

                      Christians oppions are irrelevant – they are not facts.
                      No one’s oppions are facts.

                      AGAIN the penalties are irrelevant.

                      It would not matter if this said you can be executed for violating it.

                      What matters is what it says you may not do, and what it says about who may enforce that and how it may be enforced.

                      The key point is NOT Christian,
                      in fact this is written such that a punishable violation does not actually occur until you have been directed by the police or NYPS to comply and refuse.

                      That did not occur, so there is no punishable violation.

                      If you are still arguing otherwise – then you have not read your own cite.

                      The only thing you have established is that a statute exists,
                      One that is very unhelpful to Christian.

                      The law is really specific about who can enforce it, as well as that punishable violations do not occur until the police or NYPS ask you to leash your dog.
                      That is a really bad fact for Christian.

Leave a Reply