Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that this thread is 87 pages long and is being dominated by people who are offended that a white woman got in trouble for a taped interaction with a black man during which she called the cops on the black man, but there are only 51 pages on the "I can't breathe" thread about George Floyd, a black man who was actually killed by a cop.

The Amy Cooper incident has really triggered the non-liberals on this thread. It truly is fascinating. The whole taped interaction has been dissected to death on this thread with the right-wingers heavily invested in denying that Amy was using any white privilege and stating or implying that the black birdwatcher was the problem.

Even the poor dog, that was so clearly mistreated that it was RECLAIMED by the rescue she got him from, apparently was "uncomfortable" and "only choking for 3-4 seconds" according to conservatives. Fox News has rewired your brains or something. I can't think of another explanation.

I am very liberal and I think they were both wrong but he clearly set up this situation and was looking to provoke her. He did and was successfully in his plan to ruin her life. Congrats to him. Instead of walking away and finding another spot, he engaged her and provoked her until she snapped. They were in an isolated area and she was clearly scared of him. She was wrong in her racist statements but she was right to call the police and ask him to stop recording her. Where is the rest of the video of the interactions before and after.... he only shared a small part.

He was trying to take her dog. He was clear he called over the dog AND offered the dog treats so she was trying to prevent him from taking the dog. She was not intentionally choking him. Would you let your dog or child go to a stranger provoking and recording you? Of course not.

I agree with you, but I'm a conservative. Well, I'm actually a moderate who these days considers myself a conservative because the left went so far. But it does seem like you're on the wrong side

I think she was more wrong than he was, though, both for the dog off leash and the specific references to his race in her threats, even though he clearly had a chip on his shoulder. Neither of them were behaving like well adjusted people.

(AND the animal abuse of course!)

That was not animal abuse. She was trying to keep the dog away from him and keep him with her.

The simpler option would have been to clip the leash on the dog then make her phone call. But that would have meant he won the argument to leash the dog. Rather than take the leash that was in her hand, she was choking the dog by its collar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What she should have done according to posters is said to herself, “OMG this guy wants me to leave the park, and he’s threatening me and my dog, so I should get out of here ASAP because he says so. Or else “
#womanisthevictim

That's several steps later after she caused all the problems.

She was letting her dog run through the bird habitat. He asks her politely to please leash her dog (you know, with the leash she has in her hand). He even points to the sign she is near that says that it is required by law. She instead insists that he needs to run. He points out that there is another section of the park just a short walk away where dogs are allowed to roam unleashed. She again refuses saying that "it's too dangerous". She knows there's a law. She's been asked to follow the law. She's been given two alternatives (put the leash on or go to the other part of the park where leashes are not required), but she insists that she and the dog are too important to follow the law.

And worse, she decided that if this lower life form was going to question her, she was going to punish him by threatening him with having the police come. She knows that if she plays the race card, that regardless of the situation, the police will take her side, after all, it's a black man accused of threatening and attacking a white woman and she knows how that will play out. If he's lucky, he just be beaten and handcuffed. If he's not careful, he'll end up like Freddie Gray or George Floyd or the dozens of other black men accused of a crime. She even blatantly tells him that this is what's in store for him if he doesn't back down and leave her alone and let her break the law and let her dog run through the bird habitat. Without the video, she would have won, too. But fortunately, he pulled out his phone and showed the world just what a POS she really is. She knows that without evidence that she will win, which his why when he starts recording her, she tells him to stop and even tries to assault him by knocking the phone out of his hand. If he hadn't shouted to stay away from him, she probably would have hit him. It looks that way from the video.

She was not a victim in any way, shape or form. She is and was the abuser. Note that she made an unequivocal apology the next day without any excuses and without trying to blame him like the bigots on this thread have done.

So true. She was most offended that this lesser person was telling her she was doing something wrong. I disagree about the apology. It was crap. She wouldn't use his name, she reiterated that it was because she was afraid of him - didn't you notice the odd sentence about thinking of the police as a protection agency. It was poorly worded bullshit mostly focused on how her life has been destroyed. There was very little admission of what she did wrong. She didn't say "I should have leashed my dog and told Mr. Cooper I was sorry". There was no real admission of what she did wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, can we finally agree this woman is crazy? Have you read the latest news about how she stalked a white male colleague, made aggressive threats, filed multiple police reports and ultimately filed a lawsuit against him?

Remember several pages ago when multiple posters said she wasn’t crazy—just racist?

Remember all the posts saying she would never disrespect a white man? Remember the posts that claimed she was an angel at work and her colleagues would defend her?

I told you she was an aggressive lunatic!

And, she is also racist.

Has everyone read the latest news? She went bunny boiling nutso and tried to destroy her white colleague’s life.

Do you have a link? She strikes me like uber-liberal city feminist.

Actually, there’s a NY Post article claiming she berated people for voting for Obama.

The most detailed article about her stalking of Martin Priest was in the Daily Mail, but there are tons of articles from other sources. She’s not mentally stable.

Any liberal women is not mentally stable. It is a mental illness and a life choices, and in no way an excuse for her actions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, can we finally agree this woman is crazy? Have you read the latest news about how she stalked a white male colleague, made aggressive threats, filed multiple police reports and ultimately filed a lawsuit against him?

Remember several pages ago when multiple posters said she wasn’t crazy—just racist?

Remember all the posts saying she would never disrespect a white man? Remember the posts that claimed she was an angel at work and her colleagues would defend her?

I told you she was an aggressive lunatic!

And, she is also racist.

Has everyone read the latest news? She went bunny boiling nutso and tried to destroy her white colleague’s life.

Do you have a link? She strikes me like uber-liberal city feminist.

Actually, there’s a NY Post article claiming she berated people for voting for Obama.

The most detailed article about her stalking of Martin Priest was in the Daily Mail, but there are tons of articles from other sources. She’s not mentally stable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true. She was most offended that this lesser person was telling her she was doing something wrong. I disagree about the apology. It was crap. She wouldn't use his name, she reiterated that it was because she was afraid of him - didn't you notice the odd sentence about thinking of the police as a protection agency. It was poorly worded bullshit mostly focused on how her life has been destroyed. There was very little admission of what she did wrong. She didn't say "I should have leashed my dog and told Mr. Cooper I was sorry". There was no real admission of what she did wrong.

I'm the PP you were responding to. While I think she was completely at fault, I give her some credit for her apology. She actually did say some of the things you say she didn't. Here is her statement:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-amy-cooper-on-central-park-incident-301065492.html

I want to apologize to Chris Cooper for my actions when I encountered him in Central Park yesterday. I reacted emotionally and made false assumptions about his intentions when, in fact, I was the one who was acting inappropriately by not having my dog on a leash. When Chris began offering treats to my dog and confronted me in an area where there was no one else nearby and said, "You're not going to like what I'm going to do next," I assumed we were being threatened when all he had intended to do was record our encounter on his phone. He had every right to request that I leash my dog in an area where it was required. I am well aware of the pain that misassumptions and insensitive statements about race cause and would never have imagined that I would be involved in the type of incident that occurred with Chris. I hope that a few mortifying seconds in a lifetime of forty years will not define me in his eyes and that he will accept my sincere apology.

She did use his name. She did some of what she did wrong, but not the most egregious part that she tried too weaponize the police by falsely depicting a black man attacking a white woman in the park. She did admit she was acting inappropriately by not having her dog on a leash and she started with the apology.

4

Well, she also spoiled the life of a married man when she wanted to force a romantic relationship on him. She told the pregnant girlfriend of the man who was in the process of divorce from his wife, that she had given money to the man so that he could get his girlfriend aborted. '

She is all kinds of evil. Go back to her childhood. She has been sexually, emotionally, physically or mentally abused by her family. She is too damaged, angry, racist, hateful and heinous a person. She cannot be saved. Such people should be culled from the gene pool because they have criminal minds. If she was a male and had the physical strength she would be the BTK serial killer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This creepy birder is not a VICTIM just stop.
He is the aggressor both then and later. There was clearly a longer conversation where he also tells her to go to another part of the park. He wanted that park to himself and he threatened a woman to get it. Faced with that guy, I would have been intimidated. Too bad SHE didn’t think to whip out HER phone.

You need to just stop. He didn't "want the park to himself," he wanted it for the birds he was trying to protect. There was indeed another section of the park where she could have had her dog unleashed. Stop with the lies and insinuations already.

He wanted her out of that section and said so. Right at the first. He’s no hero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This creepy birder is not a VICTIM just stop.
He is the aggressor both then and later. There was clearly a longer conversation where he also tells her to go to another part of the park. He wanted that park to himself and he threatened a woman to get it. Faced with that guy, I would have been intimidated. Too bad SHE didn’t think to whip out HER phone.

You need to just stop. He didn't "want the park to himself," he wanted it for the birds he was trying to protect. There was indeed another section of the park where she could have had her dog unleashed. Stop with the lies and insinuations already.

He wanted her out of that section and said so. Right at the first. He’s no hero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This creepy birder is not a VICTIM just stop.
He is the aggressor both then and later. There was clearly a longer conversation where he also tells her to go to another part of the park. He wanted that park to himself and he threatened a woman to get it. Faced with that guy, I would have been intimidated. Too bad SHE didn’t think to whip out HER phone.

You need to just stop. He didn't "want the park to himself," he wanted it for the birds he was trying to protect. There was indeed another section of the park where she could have had her dog unleashed. Stop with the lies and insinuations already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true. She was most offended that this lesser person was telling her she was doing something wrong. I disagree about the apology. It was crap. She wouldn't use his name, she reiterated that it was because she was afraid of him - didn't you notice the odd sentence about thinking of the police as a protection agency. It was poorly worded bullshit mostly focused on how her life has been destroyed. There was very little admission of what she did wrong. She didn't say "I should have leashed my dog and told Mr. Cooper I was sorry". There was no real admission of what she did wrong.

I'm the PP you were responding to. While I think she was completely at fault, I give her some credit for her apology. She actually did say some of the things you say she didn't. Here is her statement:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-amy-cooper-on-central-park-incident-301065492.html

I want to apologize to Chris Cooper for my actions when I encountered him in Central Park yesterday. I reacted emotionally and made false assumptions about his intentions when, in fact, I was the one who was acting inappropriately by not having my dog on a leash. When Chris began offering treats to my dog and confronted me in an area where there was no one else nearby and said, "You're not going to like what I'm going to do next," I assumed we were being threatened when all he had intended to do was record our encounter on his phone. He had every right to request that I leash my dog in an area where it was required. I am well aware of the pain that misassumptions and insensitive statements about race cause and would never have imagined that I would be involved in the type of incident that occurred with Chris. I hope that a few mortifying seconds in a lifetime of forty years will not define me in his eyes and that he will accept my sincere apology.

She did use his name. She did some of what she did wrong, but not the most egregious part that she tried too weaponize the police by falsely depicting a black man attacking a white woman in the park. She did admit she was acting inappropriately by not having her dog on a leash and she started with the apology.

Anonymous wrote:So true. She was most offended that this lesser person was telling her she was doing something wrong. I disagree about the apology. It was crap. She wouldn't use his name, she reiterated that it was because she was afraid of him - didn't you notice the odd sentence about thinking of the police as a protection agency. It was poorly worded bullshit mostly focused on how her life has been destroyed. There was very little admission of what she did wrong. She didn't say "I should have leashed my dog and told Mr. Cooper I was sorry". There was no real admission of what she did wrong.

I want to apologize to Chris Cooper for my actions when I encountered him in Central Park yesterday. I reacted emotionally and made false assumptions about his intentions when, in fact, I was the one who was acting inappropriately by not having my dog on a leash. When Chris began offering treats to my dog and confronted me in an area where there was no one else nearby and said, "You're not going to like what I'm going to do next," I assumed we were being threatened when all he had intended to do was record our encounter on his phone. He had every right to request that I leash my dog in an area where it was required. I am well aware of the pain that misassumptions and insensitive statements about race cause and would never have imagined that I would be involved in the type of incident that occurred with Chris. I hope that a few mortifying seconds in a lifetime of forty years will not define me in his eyes and that he will accept my sincere apology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This creepy birder is not a VICTIM just stop.
He is the aggressor both then and later. There was clearly a longer conversation where he also tells her to go to another part of the park. He wanted that park to himself and he threatened a woman to get it. Faced with that guy, I would have been intimidated. Too bad SHE didn’t think to whip out HER phone.

You are everything wrong with our country, nasty racist trash.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What she should have done according to posters is said to herself, “OMG this guy wants me to leave the park, and he’s threatening me and my dog, so I should get out of here ASAP because he says so. Or else “
#womanisthevictim

That's several steps later after she caused all the problems.

She was letting her dog run through the bird habitat. He asks her politely to please leash her dog (you know, with the leash she has in her hand). He even points to the sign she is near that says that it is required by law. She instead insists that he needs to run. He points out that there is another section of the park just a short walk away where dogs are allowed to roam unleashed. She again refuses saying that "it's too dangerous". She knows there's a law. She's been asked to follow the law. She's been given two alternatives (put the leash on or go to the other part of the park where leashes are not required), but she insists that she and the dog are too important to follow the law.

And worse, she decided that if this lower life form was going to question her, she was going to punish him by threatening him with having the police come. She knows that if she plays the race card, that regardless of the situation, the police will take her side, after all, it's a black man accused of threatening and attacking a white woman and she knows how that will play out. If he's lucky, he just be beaten and handcuffed. If he's not careful, he'll end up like Freddie Gray or George Floyd or the dozens of other black men accused of a crime. She even blatantly tells him that this is what's in store for him if he doesn't back down and leave her alone and let her break the law and let her dog run through the bird habitat. Without the video, she would have won, too. But fortunately, he pulled out his phone and showed the world just what a POS she really is. She knows that without evidence that she will win, which his why when he starts recording her, she tells him to stop and even tries to assault him by knocking the phone out of his hand. If he hadn't shouted to stay away from him, she probably would have hit him. It looks that way from the video.

She was not a victim in any way, shape or form. She is and was the abuser. Note that she made an unequivocal apology the next day without any excuses and without trying to blame him like the bigots on this thread have done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, can we finally agree this woman is crazy? Have you read the latest news about how she stalked a white male colleague, made aggressive threats, filed multiple police reports and ultimately filed a lawsuit against him?

Remember several pages ago when multiple posters said she wasn’t crazy—just racist?

Remember all the posts saying she would never disrespect a white man? Remember the posts that claimed she was an angel at work and her colleagues would defend her?

I told you she was an aggressive lunatic!

And, she is also racist.

Has everyone read the latest news? She went bunny boiling nutso and tried to destroy her white colleague’s life.

Do you have a link? She strikes me like uber-liberal city feminist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This creepy birder is not a VICTIM just stop.
He is the aggressor both then and later. There was clearly a longer conversation where he also tells her to go to another part of the park. He wanted that park to himself and he threatened a woman to get it. Faced with that guy, I would have been intimidated. Too bad SHE didn’t think to whip out HER phone.

You need to just stop. He didn't "want the park to himself," he wanted it for the birds he was trying to protect. There was indeed another section of the park where she could have had her dog unleashed. Stop with the lies and insinuations already.