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: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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

I can’t with stupid people either, and that’s you. Watch the video again. He pulled out the treats and he didn’t even use them. So there was NO THREAT anymore by the time she was crying on the call to 911.

[Anonymous]

Henry the dog is the one you should be focusing on. He was dragged around by his neck and looked very upset in the video. He is traumatized. He needs a go fund me for the many doggie treats he deserves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

You only imagine he was going to poison a dog because you are racist and he is black.

He was going to stop the dog from destroying the bird sanctuary by giving him a treat and having him sit, like UPS and FedEx drivers do every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

You only imagine he was going to poison a dog because you are racist and he is black.

He was going to stop the dog from destroying the bird sanctuary by giving him a treat and having him sit, like UPS and FedEx drivers do every day.

And then ... get the n his truck and drive on? Or what?

His plan was to threaten her and scare her. And he succeeded!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

You only imagine he was going to poison a dog because you are racist and he is black.

He was going to stop the dog from destroying the bird sanctuary by giving him a treat and having him sit, like UPS and FedEx drivers do every day.

LOL Yes, and he does it with an evil laugh while wiggling his fingers and stroking his mustache too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question - I'm assuming there would not be this amount of outrage (or any at all) if she had not called the police? Or if she hadn't referred to him as 'African American'? What if she had just said 'F U, I'll do what I want and won't leash my dog' (asshole move for sure, but things like this surely happen every day among people of all races). I'm just trying to differentiate between racist behavior and being a run of the mill asshole (I am white, but have both been the asshole and had others of all races be the asshole to me throughout my life).

This may sound ignorant but I'm trying to understand.

She knew exactly what she was doing by saying "I'm going to tell them that an AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN is threatening me". Then she said it again, before calling the police and claiming that he - excuse me, that an AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN, was threatening her and her dog. In normal circumstances where there is conflict and someone feels strongly that they need police intervention/help, they call and explain what is happening. The operator will then ask for a description of the other party/suspect/perpetrator. By premeditating her fake distress and preempting the description, she planned to turn a very busy police department into a weapon by falsely claiming to be threatened by a *gasp* BLACK man. She was hoping that she would be seen as an innocent white woman who was being attacked in Central Park by a black man who would cause her harm. What she didn't know that she was getting was a Harvard grad who is on the Board of Directors of the Audobon Society.

When she got on the phone she began to wail about this AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN as if she were being attacked and even ended the call with a sense of urgency as if her life were in danger. This was unnecessary and racist.

White people are certainly able to experience conflict with black people and NOT be racist. She could have said "Mind your own business, jerk", "Don't give my dog treats, dork", or "F*ck off, birdman". She would have been rude, but not racist. If she truly felt threatened she could have just walked away, and certainly not aggressively approached him as shown at the start of the video.

I think she was approaching him to ask him to stop videoing her. Is this just a thing now, we can all video each other all the time?

If he didn't video the situation, he may be in jail right now. That's what happens when a white woman says that she is being threatened by a black man.

He did threaten to poison her dog (or implied as much), by his own admission. Probably shocked that a “Karen” would go nuclear on him, but it was just a little bit misogynist to provoke someone like that and not expect a response, in New York of all places. I strongly doubt Cooper would have challenged a fellow black man with a bully breed in the same way.

No, he didn't.

STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM.

So many nasty racists on this site. It's disgusting.

DP. I don't think that he did, if so I missed it. But he did threaten her. And he is hardly a victim. He hasn't lost his job, his dog, received death threats, and possibly charged with a hate crime or criminal charges.

He said, on his own social media, that he was going to “do something she wouldn’t like” and then brought out something he kept for such “intransigence”.
The implication being that he was going to poison her dog or otherwise lure it away (to do harm).

Your inference. Imply and infer really are not the same thing. Please just own it -- or explain it in irrefutable terms. Repetition is not irrefutable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

You only imagine he was going to poison a dog because you are racist and he is black.

He was going to stop the dog from destroying the bird sanctuary by giving him a treat and having him sit, like UPS and FedEx drivers do every day.

LOL Yes, and he does it with an evil laugh while wiggling his fingers and stroking his mustache too.

You know those birdwatchers... they are notoriously treacherous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

I just can't with stupid people. He, by his own effing admission said he told her "fine, I'm going to handle it my way and you're not going to like it". That is an ominous statement. Are you stupid or just blinded by wanting to be right? Yes, she's a racist pig, but holy crap, admit he implied he was going to do something nefarious. Without that, I can't even listen to your other arguments because you've proven you're jaded and will spout out only what suits your agenda. You want people to see your point, then show you're able to see other points of view too!

You only imagine he was going to poison a dog because you are racist and he is black.

He was going to stop the dog from destroying the bird sanctuary by giving him a treat and having him sit, like UPS and FedEx drivers do every day.

LOL Yes, and he does it with an evil laugh while wiggling his fingers and stroking his mustache too.

You know those birdwatchers... they are notoriously treacherous.

Bird watcher here. Definitely! We hate all non-avian life forms.

Oh wait, I have a leashed dog and an indoor cat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

Either poisoned treats or regular treats for stealing a dog. Normal non-dog-owning people don't keep treats in their pockets "just in case".

People who walk a lot, especially people who walk in parks -- which includes a whole lot of people in NYC, indeed, have plans for dealing with unleashed dogs, among other delights of city living. Many quite "normal" people would have dog treats. Equally "normal" but less kind/more efficient people would carry pepper spray -- a more multi-purpose option.
It's amazing how many people who probably glide from home to car and back again have So much expertise about what is supposedly "normal" in a setting they're not familiar with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

Either poisoned treats or regular treats for stealing a dog. Normal non-dog-owning people don't keep treats in their pockets "just in case".

People who walk a lot, especially people who walk in parks -- which includes a whole lot of people in NYC, indeed, have plans for dealing with unleashed dogs, among other delights of city living. Many quite "normal" people would have dog treats. Equally "normal" but less kind/more efficient people would carry pepper spray -- a more multi-purpose option.
It's amazing how many people who probably glide from home to car and back again have So much expertise about what is supposedly "normal" in a setting they're not familiar with.

Do they normally preface an innocent act by saying "you're not going to like it"?

[Anonymous]

Many, many people carry pepper spray to deal with unleashed dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

Either poisoned treats or regular treats for stealing a dog. Normal non-dog-owning people don't keep treats in their pockets "just in case".

People who deal with dogs that are not theirs do all the time. Ask you local mailman, UPS and Fed Ex drivers.

Agreed. All these people afraid of random people carrying poisoned dog treats in their pockets. Show me any evidence that there are real life examples and not some Hollywood movie that there are people going around and poisoning dogs with poisoned dog treats in parks and in urban areas. This is some weird twisted nightmare you have that this is a real threat.

The man was a board member of the Audobon Society. He goes the Ramble often to birdwatch. He's seen many, many entitled people who ignore the leash laws like this woman did. He said he has found that dangling a treat will usually make a dog owner realize that they don't have control of their pet and to stop them from eating the treat from a stranger will then leash their dogs. The dogs rarely get the treats, he just needs to show them the treat to make the owner realize that they need to obey the law and leash their pet. So, he said himself why he has those. And yes, mailmen and delivery drivers have been using this tactic for many years to distract dogs from chasing them. And they give them treats if they make friends with the dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many, many people carry pepper spray to deal with unleashed dogs.

And actually, THAT would warrant a "you're not going to like it" warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. That’s exactly the point.

No, he was trying to scare her, to punish her for ignoring the leash laws. (While video recording her.)

It worked, too.

The implication was that the treat was poisoned. Anyone with a dog knows that there are sickos that do this (and it’s why I trained my dog to never take a treat unless commanded and why I keep my dog on leash).

Please explain the "implication...that the treat was poisoned". I've read this a lot in these comments, with absolutely nothing to support it. Are poisoned dog treats some kind of thing?

+1. Why would anybody’s 1st or even 9th thought be, here’s someone who must have poison dog treats in his pocket? How weird that pp’s mind goes there.

Either poisoned treats or regular treats for stealing a dog. Normal non-dog-owning people don't keep treats in their pockets "just in case".

People who deal with dogs that are not theirs do all the time. Ask you local mailman, UPS and Fed Ex drivers.

Agreed. All these people afraid of random people carrying poisoned dog treats in their pockets. Show me any evidence that there are real life examples and not some Hollywood movie that there are people going around and poisoning dogs with poisoned dog treats in parks and in urban areas. This is some weird twisted nightmare you have that this is a real threat.

The man was a board member of the Audobon Society. He goes the Ramble often to birdwatch. He's seen many, many entitled people who ignore the leash laws like this woman did. He said he has found that dangling a treat will usually make a dog owner realize that they don't have control of their pet and to stop them from eating the treat from a stranger will then leash their dogs. The dogs rarely get the treats, he just needs to show them the treat to make the owner realize that they need to obey the law and leash their pet. So, he said himself why he has those. And yes, mailmen and delivery drivers have been using this tactic for many years to distract dogs from chasing them. And they give them treats if they make friends with the dog.

Has he explained the "warning"?