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?

You think wrong. This woman was not even one bit scared. She aggressively gets into his space, she taunts him that she will file a false report, she actually does that with all the acting. A scared woman would have left. The kinds of things she did as a woman to this man, you do only if you are supremely confident that he cannot harm you, Try doing this to any random man and you would have been smacked around at the very least.

You can videotape in a public place anyone without permission. This means that you have to behave yourself in a public place. This is not hard because most of us do that every day and minute when we are outside.

Thanks to all the videotaping the world is seeing what the Black community knew. I have been in this country for 30 years and I did not really believe that this kind of overt racism was rampant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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"?

You've never lived in NYC if you really think that was a threat. People say aggressive things in NYC billions of times daily. If the police had to respond to wilting flowers who were insulted anytime someone said they weren't going to like something the police would never see a single actual crime or criminal. This is not even in the same language as a threat unless you live with a Hollywood scriptwriter.

But not vice versa.

Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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"?

You've never lived in NYC if you really think that was a threat. People say aggressive things in NYC billions of times daily. If the police had to respond to wilting flowers who were insulted anytime someone said they weren't going to like something the police would never see a single actual crime or criminal. This is not even in the same language as a threat unless you live with a Hollywood scriptwriter.

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!

And i can't stand people who are trying fabricate threats just to blame the victim. Look at the start of the video, he was over 20 feet away from the woman and the dog. She takes seven strides that are about 2-3 feet long before he warns her to stay back, and she is still more than arms length and more than the social distancing limit of 6 feet away when he asks her not to come closer. So, how much of a threat is a man who is over 20 feet away to her dog. If he's making a threat, why would she not just hold her dog by the collar, put the leash in her hand on or walk away. Instead, if she perceived this to be a threat, why would she actually walk more than 15 feet TOWARDS him and get almost within arms reach from him? She clearly did not perceive him to be threat to her dog or she would not have walked that distance to him. I don't understand how you can make this about a threat unless you are taking his statement completely out of context. The context is that he asked her to leash, she refused. He offered her alternatives that included going to a nearby area of the park without leash laws. She refused. He said if she was going to whatever she wanted he could do the same, even if she didn't like it. He called the dog from 20 feet away. She blew him off again saying the dog wouldn't come. If she felt threatened in any way, she would not have responded belligerently; she would have taken the dog and left. He said, "don't be so sure" and reached into his pocket. She's over 20 feet away. Even if you believe the ludicrous fiction that there are people out there carrying poison in their pockets, HE'S OVER 20 FEET AWAY. She can hold the dog, leash the dog or walk away. He's near 60 and graying. She's nearly 20 years younger. Does she really think she can't get away from him? It's ridiculous the lengths some of you will go to contort and spin the facts to blame the victim. If she felt threatened by him, why would she then stand 10 feet away from him to call the police. Who doesn't retreat from a threatening situation. Who stands there and calls the police? Who then doesn't wait for the police to show? She did not feel threatened. The only people who think she was threatened are entitled dog owners who believe that they have more right to the world than anyone else and that laws and rules like leash laws are for other people, not them.

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