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:

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.

Um, no I haven't. There are likely multiple people posting about it because it's a valid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um, no I haven't. There are likely multiple people posting about it because it's a valid point.

whataboutism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um, no I haven't. There are likely multiple people posting about it because it's a valid point.

Yeah. There are you and 1-2 other people posting about this. Over.and.over.and.over.and.over.

You've made your point. Pretending to be multiple people is transparent and is hurting, not helping, your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I haven't pretended to be multiple people.

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.

Um, no I haven't. There are likely multiple people posting about it because it's a valid point.

Yeah. There are you and 1-2 other people posting about this. Over.and.over.and.over.and.over.

You've made your point. Pretending to be multiple people is transparent and is hurting, not helping, your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um, no I haven't. There are likely multiple people posting about it because it's a valid point.

Yeah. There are you and 1-2 other people posting about this. Over.and.over.and.over.and.over.

You've made your point. Pretending to be multiple people is transparent and is hurting, not helping, your point.

I haven't pretended to be multiple people. If that makes you feel better, keep on believing, though.

[Anonymous]

DP. Luring someone else’s dog to you with a treat is bizarre at best and threatening at worst. What was he going to do, force her to leash the dog?

[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 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.

THANK YOU! The hatred for this woman astonishes me. Yes she was in the wrong with her little dog off the leash. Geez.

[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.

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.

THANK YOU! The hatred for this woman astonishes me. Yes she was in the wrong with her little dog off the leash. Geez.

Whatever. You folks who choose to focus endlessly on the dog treats astonish and disgust me.

[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?[/quote


- Before 9am, many areas of the Park are open for dogs. There are also dog runs. Very small areas of the park are closed to unleashed dogs at all times. One of these areas is the Ramble -- which is a well-known sanctuary for birds. It is also very clearly marked as being off-limits to unleashed dogs. So, yeah, it is indeed unreasonable for someone with an unleashed dog to go out of her way to find and use one of the few spaces in the park that is not open to unleashed dogs. It is also illegal -- because it is posted as being off-limits to unleashed dogs. Bird watching was -- and is --more of a priority in this specific delineated area because that's what the sanctuary is designed to protect. There were many, many other spaces nearby in the park where someone could go with an unleashed dog -- something that Mr Cooper pointed out. I'm guessing that you knew all of this, though, when you wrote your post. Just like you know -- or should -- that an unleashed dog is not a child.

It's funny that you have so much to say about the dog getting to play and run and exercise and nothing at all to say about the owner who deliberately made multiple entitled decisions that resulted in -- among other things -- her losing the dog that she failed to care for safely.

[Anonymous]

A clearer reply to the person who posted at 10:58



- Before 9am, many areas of the Park are open for dogs. There are also dog runs. Very small areas of the park are closed to unleashed dogs at all times. One of these areas is the Ramble -- which is a well-known sanctuary for birds. It is also very clearly marked as being off-limits to unleashed dogs. So, yeah, it is indeed unreasonable for someone with an unleashed dog to go out of her way to find and use one of the few spaces in the park that is not open to unleashed dogs. It is also illegal -- because it is posted as being off-limits to unleashed dogs. Bird watching was -- and is --more of a priority in this specific delineated area because that's what the sanctuary is designed to protect. There were many, many other spaces nearby in the park where someone could go with an unleashed dog -- something that Mr Cooper pointed out. I'm guessing that you knew all of this, though, when you wrote your post. Just like you know -- or should -- that an unleashed dog is not a child.

It's funny that you have so much to say about the dog getting to play and run and exercise and nothing at all to say about the owner who deliberately made multiple entitled decisions that resulted in -- among other things -- her losing the dog that she failed to care for safely

[Anonymous]

As cra-cra as Amy is, because he was a Karen first, I'm able to offer her a little more grace than I did initially. She likely would have acted similarly had the guy been white, because...entitled people. But being black, his dog treat threat escalated racism she probably never even knew existed. Media has long portrayed the big, black man as bad - and she capitalized on white woman syndrome - and the fact that both of these played out from her subconscious is a reminder racism is rooted deeply. It's unfair of her employer to paint her as a racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Luring someone else’s dog to you with a treat is bizarre at best and threatening at worst. What was he going to do, force her to leash the dog?

The idea is that a normal person's reaction to seeing their dog lured would be to stop it and leash it, thus achieving the desired outcome - the woman leashes her dog. This is not that hard to understand. Don't want your dog lured? Keep it on a leash and maintain control. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As cra-cra as Amy is, because he was a Karen first, I'm able to offer her a little more grace than I did initially. She likely would have acted similarly had the guy been white, because...entitled people. But being black, his dog treat threat escalated racism she probably never even knew existed. Media has long portrayed the big, black man as bad - and she capitalized on white woman syndrome - and the fact that both of these played out from her subconscious is a reminder racism is rooted deeply. It's unfair of her employer to paint her as a racist.

Aww you're right. Poor little Amy was tricked into being a racist b!tch. How dare she be held responsible for her actions and fired like the embarrassment that she is.

[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.

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.

THANK YOU! The hatred for this woman astonishes me. Yes she was in the wrong with her little dog off the leash. Geez.

+2. And someone’s going to have to explain to me why she’s a racist for simply describing the guys race to the police. She obviously went a bit nuts and overreacted but I can’t climb into someone else’s mind and determine the level of threat she felt, even if it was misconstrued.

[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.

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.

THANK YOU! The hatred for this woman astonishes me. Yes she was in the wrong with her little dog off the leash. Geez.

I'm the PP who is being accused of pretending to be multiple posters talking about the treats. Amy's wrongdoing extended FAR beyond walking her dog off-leash. Did you watch the video and the things that she said?