Man asked woman to leash her dog in a public park -- she called the police on him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+1

How on earth is having treats to deal with off leash dogs weird or a threat in any possible way?! WTF?

It's a threat when someone says something like 'you're not going to like this' to the owner and then calls the animal toward them. How is that not clear? Note that it's completely separate from the fact that this woman is a racist and put this man in great harm with her actions. But what he said was creepy.

Please tell me exactly what threat is being made — clearly. Because it’s really not as clear — or, dare I say: not as black and white as you’re making it out to be. What exactly is the threat that’s being made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+1

How on earth is having treats to deal with off leash dogs weird or a threat in any possible way?! WTF?

It's a threat when someone says something like 'you're not going to like this' to the owner and then calls the animal toward them. How is that not clear? Note that it's completely separate from the fact that this woman is a racist and put this man in great harm with her actions. But what he said was creepy.

She felt threatened as he was threatening her and his actions were basically to take her dog via treats. She was racist in how she handled the call but she was in every right to call the police as he was acting in a threatening manner by calling her dog over and escalating it with videoing her. He set hit up for his sister. His sister is nobody who needed the publicity in the tv industry who likes to sensationalize things. And, that she did. Most normal people would walk away on both ends. As a woman, I would walk away and if he followed I would call the police. If he didn't like the dog off the leash he could have called and let them handle it. As a man, you do not approach a woman in an empty area and offer her dog treats without her consent. Both were wrong on many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+1

How on earth is having treats to deal with off leash dogs weird or a threat in any possible way?! WTF?

It's a threat when someone says something like 'you're not going to like this' to the owner and then calls the animal toward them. How is that not clear? Note that it's completely separate from the fact that this woman is a racist and put this man in great harm with her actions. But what he said was creepy.

This dog was not bothering him in any way. You don't offer a dog, child or anyone else treats. Something was seriously off with both of them. If he felt threatened he should have called the police. Not try to take the dog away.

Please tell me exactly what threat is being made — clearly. Because it’s really not as clear — or, dare I say: not as black and white as you’re making it out to be. What exactly is the threat that’s being made?

His comments were threatening, his behavior was threatening especially in an area where the two of them were alone together or so showed the video, his behavior was inappropriate by calling the dog over and offering a treat. If you want the dog on a leash because you feel threatened by the dog, that is reasonable. But, to claim you felt threatened by the dog and then call the dog over for a treat makes no sense. He did it to get a reaction to give it to his sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+1

How on earth is having treats to deal with off leash dogs weird or a threat in any possible way?! WTF?

It's a threat when someone says something like 'you're not going to like this' to the owner and then calls the animal toward them. How is that not clear? Note that it's completely separate from the fact that this woman is a racist and put this man in great harm with her actions. But what he said was creepy.

She knew within seconds that treats are all he was up to. She knew within seconds that there was no real "threat." Yet shortly afterwards, there she is, trying to spin it into "threats" for the police. And some of you guys are buying it.

How would she know that? It is not normal for that kind of interaction and him being threatened by the dog so the dog needed to be on a leash and then trying to take the dog via treats makes no sense. I'm scared of dogs. I would not be offering one treats and would go the other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+100. He's on the board of the NYC Audubon. He cares about this particular patch of Central Park that's dedicated to birds.

Central Park is actually an amazing bird stopover point during migration, and we're right in the middle of spring migration now (birder here). As we speak, there are tons of warblers and other birds coming from Central and South America and stopping in Central Park to rest and refuel. Like migrating shorebirds, these long-distance migrants have very limited time to put weight back on for the rest of the journey to the boreal forest or wherever they're stopping up north. If they leave NYC underweight, they may die en route, or they may not have enough fat stored to last a few weeks of bad weather until summer arrives way up north where they're going.

He asked her politely and she refused. The police would take too long. The treat solution is ingenious and commendable.

PP again. I meant to add, human activity and unleashed dogs are really disruptive to foraging. If the birds repeatedly get spooked and fly off, they lose lots of time circling for a new place.

Then, he can leave and find a different area. Its not unreasonable for a dog to play and run in an open area where no one else was. Why is his bird watching more of a priority than her dog getting exercise? Both have a right to be there but he cannot expect everyone else to be silent and still on public property.

Would you be ok if someone offered your child a treat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM makes me so sad. I cannot believe people are excusing her.

I don't think anyone is excusing her. But I agree that DCUM is so sad. These people are trying to shift some of the blame onto the man, the victim. I can guarantee you that had the roles been reverse, that the man was the entitled privileged dog owner and the woman was the one who was trying to protect the bird habitat, that the racist male dog owner would already have been hung in effigy and people would be calling for him to be sentenced to life in prison. But because it was the reverse, it's now because the horrible evil man baited and threatened her.

He was not a victim in any way. They were both wrong however, he started it. After she refused or didn't comply, he can walk away and find another area or call the police. He doesn't continue to antagonize her and bully her and then try to get her dog via a treat. None of his actions make any sense. Nor, why not go to the police vs. giving you sister who is looking to sensationalize this (looking at her page)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both were nuts. He was threatening her by videoing her for no reason. That dog wasn't bothering anyone and I'm scared of dogs. There was no reason for him to approach her and video it so he was setting up the situation and zero respect for him. She handled it very badly but has a right to feel threatened by recording her.

Recording someone is not a threat. Maybe just a threat when a black man does it?

What about when a white boy records a black girl?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you saying he threatened her or her dog, where are you getting that?

Literally ALL he can be heard saying on the video is
- “please don’t close to me,” and he says that multiple times as she storms up and invades his 6-foot space, and
- “go ahead and call the police,” which he also says a few times.

Granted, she does tell the police “an African America man is threatening me and my dog.” But she’s lying because NOTHING in the video supports that.

Signed, a white female birder

They are getting this from misinterpreting what he posted on his Facebook page. Here is his accounting of what happened before the video (so it is only his perspective and she has not commented on it)

https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/amy-cooper-video-new-york/

On Facebook, Christian Cooper wrote, “Central Park this morning: This woman’s dog is tearing through the plantings in the Ramble.” He described the conversation he says occurred before he began recording with his cell phone:

ME: Ma’am, dogs in the Ramble have to be on the leash at all times. The sign is right there.
HER: The dog runs are closed. He needs his exercise.
ME: All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the Ramble, and you can let him run off leash all you want.
HER: It’s too dangerous.
ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.
HER: What’s that?
ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
HER: He won’t come to you.
ME: We’ll see about that…

Christian Cooper said he was planning to offer the dog treats. He told NBC New York, “If the habitat is destroyed we won’t be able to go there to see the birds, to enjoy the plantings. The only way they can keep the dog from eating the treat is to put it on a leash. At some point, she decided I’m gonna play the race card, I guess.”

Christian Cooper wrote, “I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn’t even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.” He said she then yelled at him, “don’t you touch my dog.” Christian Cooper said, “That’s when I started video recording with my iPhone, and when her inner Karen fully emerged and took a dark turn…”

They read the underlined line as a threat. I read it as a response, a statement. They seem to hear him saying this with menace in his voice and with scream film music in the background. I hear him saying it calmly, in the same tone that he used a few seconds later in the video. He is trying to illustrate that she does not have control of her pet as she thinks she does. She says that the dog won't come, but he is planning to offer a dog treat. As he says, the way to stop the dog from taking the treat is to leash him. Then he won't get to the treat, but she is not willing to do that.

Regardless of his tone, the words constitute a threat.

Signed,

Lawyer

How, exactly, is this a threat? “I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.”
It’s not a threat of physical violence. And you state that it’s not the tone. I don’t see what the specific — or even general threat is.


Kid: “Mom, what’s for dinner?”
Mom: “I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.”

I strongly suspect that many of those who view thes words as some sort of threat are projecting quite a bit.

Exactly. He didn't say "I'm going to do what I want, and it involves and ax and a shovel" She on the other hand was pretty upfront with her threat to file a false police report in which her lead would be "I'm going to tell them an African American man is threatening me" and when she fulfilled her threat she made it sound like he was on her heels with an ax and a shovel.

Trying to take a dog via treats is a threat. If this were your child, would you say, sure, you can take a treat from a stranger we met one minute ago yelling at me for you to behave how he wants to. This is public property. He had no more right to it than she does. They both were inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Why does every article mention that the man went to Harvard? Would it have made a difference if he went to the University of South Podunk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Then, he can leave and find a different area. Its not unreasonable for a dog to play and run in an open area where no one else was. Why is his bird watching more of a priority than her dog getting exercise? Both have a right to be there but he cannot expect everyone else to be silent and still on public property.

Would you be ok if someone offered your child a treat?

No. The area had posted signs saying dogs had to be leashed. There were other spots where she could have let her dog go unleashed. She was unreasonable and had no right to be doing what she was doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+100. He's on the board of the NYC Audubon. He cares about this particular patch of Central Park that's dedicated to birds.

Central Park is actually an amazing bird stopover point during migration, and we're right in the middle of spring migration now (birder here). As we speak, there are tons of warblers and other birds coming from Central and South America and stopping in Central Park to rest and refuel. Like migrating shorebirds, these long-distance migrants have very limited time to put weight back on for the rest of the journey to the boreal forest or wherever they're stopping up north. If they leave NYC underweight, they may die en route, or they may not have enough fat stored to last a few weeks of bad weather until summer arrives way up north where they're going.

He asked her politely and she refused. The police would take too long. The treat solution is ingenious and commendable.

PP again. I meant to add, human activity and unleashed dogs are really disruptive to foraging. If the birds repeatedly get spooked and fly off, they lose lots of time circling for a new place.

Then, he can leave and find a different area. Its not unreasonable for a dog to play and run in an open area where no one else was. Why is his bird watching more of a priority than her dog getting exercise? Both have a right to be there but he cannot expect everyone else to be silent and still on public property.

Would you be ok if someone offered your child a treat?

She was in violation of leash laws. So, actually, she did not have the right to do what she was doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+100. He's on the board of the NYC Audubon. He cares about this particular patch of Central Park that's dedicated to birds.

Central Park is actually an amazing bird stopover point during migration, and we're right in the middle of spring migration now (birder here). As we speak, there are tons of warblers and other birds coming from Central and South America and stopping in Central Park to rest and refuel. Like migrating shorebirds, these long-distance migrants have very limited time to put weight back on for the rest of the journey to the boreal forest or wherever they're stopping up north. If they leave NYC underweight, they may die en route, or they may not have enough fat stored to last a few weeks of bad weather until summer arrives way up north where they're going.

He asked her politely and she refused. The police would take too long. The treat solution is ingenious and commendable.

PP again. I meant to add, human activity and unleashed dogs are really disruptive to foraging. If the birds repeatedly get spooked and fly off, they lose lots of time circling for a new place.

Then, he can leave and find a different area. Its not unreasonable for a dog to play and run in an open area where no one else was. Why is his bird watching more of a priority than her dog getting exercise? Both have a right to be there but he cannot expect everyone else to be silent and still on public property.

Would you be ok if someone offered your child a treat?

One is within the law, the other is not. Very simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both were nuts. He was threatening her by videoing her for no reason. That dog wasn't bothering anyone and I'm scared of dogs. There was no reason for him to approach her and video it so he was setting up the situation and zero respect for him. She handled it very badly but has a right to feel threatened by recording her.

Recording someone is not a threat. Maybe just a threat when a black man does it?

What about when a white boy records a black girl?

If a white boy records a black girl refusing to follow the law, good on him. What exactly is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+1

How on earth is having treats to deal with off leash dogs weird or a threat in any possible way?! WTF?

It's a threat when someone says something like 'you're not going to like this' to the owner and then calls the animal toward them. How is that not clear? Note that it's completely separate from the fact that this woman is a racist and put this man in great harm with her actions. But what he said was creepy.

Please tell me exactly what threat is being made — clearly. Because it’s really not as clear — or, dare I say: not as black and white as you’re making it out to be. What exactly is the threat that’s being made?

I'm the PP who said it was clear. Sure, I'll explain what I mean. He said he was going to do something she wouldn't like, and then started to lure her dog over with treats. Giving a dog treats is not a threat, of course. Luring a dog over to then 'do something you won't like' IS ABSOLUTELY an implied threat.

I don't blame him a bit for recording, as a black man that is absolutely what he needed to do in order to protect himself from false accusations. He shouldn't have said what he did and then called the dog over, though. How was she to know what his plans were?

However, it's no one's fault but her own that she went berserk and made racist comments with (seemingly) the intention of putting this man in danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I agree she was 100% responsible , and I am not trying to shift the blame, but I’m curious - why did he have treats? Is this a routine thing that he encounters dogs off leash in the ramble and asking them to be leashed doesn’t work?

Yes. And many people who seem confused by this would apparently prefer: That he carry pepper spray? That the unleashed dogs ruin the protected bird sanctuary area? That something, SOMETHING must be a clear sign of problematic behavior and ill intent in a soft-spoken, Harvard educated, pleasantly nerdy, middle aged birdwatcher? I bet most people who read that description— without also reading “African American — would have viewed the dog treat solution as being both ingenious and commendable.

+1

How on earth is having treats to deal with off leash dogs weird or a threat in any possible way?! WTF?

It's a threat when someone says something like 'you're not going to like this' to the owner and then calls the animal toward them. How is that not clear? Note that it's completely separate from the fact that this woman is a racist and put this man in great harm with her actions. But what he said was creepy.

Please tell me exactly what threat is being made — clearly. Because it’s really not as clear — or, dare I say: not as black and white as you’re making it out to be. What exactly is the threat that’s being made?

I'm the PP who said it was clear. Sure, I'll explain what I mean. He said he was going to do something she wouldn't like, and then started to lure her dog over with treats. Giving a dog treats is not a threat, of course. Luring a dog over to then 'do something you won't like' IS ABSOLUTELY an implied threat.

I don't blame him a bit for recording, as a black man that is absolutely what he needed to do in order to protect himself from false accusations. He shouldn't have said what he did and then called the dog over, though. How was she to know what his plans were?

However, it's no one's fault but her own that she went berserk and made racist comments with (seemingly) the intention of putting this man in danger.

Okay, now can we stop? I think you have spent 25 pages complaining about how terrible it is to threaten to give someone's dog a treat to help them get it back on leash. Jesus christ. The treat thing is so ridiculous in the face of the entire Amy Cooper sh-tshow I don't know why you keep banging on about it.