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.
It’s clearly and obviously intended as a threat. Doesn’t necessarily excuse her behavior but it’s a clear trigger.
It's a response. To her inexcusable behavior. First she doesn't leash the dog, then when asked politely, she is belligerent and refuses, so he pulls out treats.
Sorry you can't understand that responses to irresponsible people are not threats. Unleashed dogs are a threat to the environment, which is why the leash law exists. Irresponsible pet owners will continue to act irresponsibly and illegally because there is absolutely no deterrent for them. Calling the police is not a deterrent because it takes the police far too long to respond. Anyone walking their dog off leash will be home before the police respond to a call from the park.
+1. Giving treats to her dog is not a threat. In what world would that ever be a threat?
It's a peaceable and ingenious way to manipulate her into doing the right thing--leashing her dog--which she should have been doing all along.
A threat would be grabbing her or her dog and marching them out of the leash zone. Or yelling. Or getting up in her face, like she did to him. Or threatening to call the police and lie about what she was up to, like she did with him. None of which he did.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes, the blame shifting is appalling. Who TF are you disgusting people?
Not shifting blame. Just pointing out that both people acted badly. To varying degrees.
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?
She was 100% wrong and responsible for her bad behavior. But that dude has some soul-searching to do.
Because he didn’t want her dog to destroy the plants in the ramble? Because he called out this lady for breaking the law?
What is wrong with people? I’m going to carry pepper spray and spray unleashed dogs from now on. Quick spray in the face and move on. Obviously you can’t talk to their owners and expect decent behavior.
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?
She was 100% wrong and responsible for her bad behavior. But that dude has some soul-searching to do.
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?
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?
Anonymous wrote:If she had just LEASHED HER DOG there wouldn’t be any problem!
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.
Anonymous wrote:Yes, the blame shifting is appalling. Who TF are you disgusting people?
Anonymous wrote:DCUM makes me so sad. I cannot believe people are excusing her.
Anonymous wrote:DCUM makes me so sad. I cannot believe people are excusing her.