The Gray Lady’s Debauchery: Karen’s Story

 

This is yet another recommendation of a Bari Weiss podcast, this one featuring fellow writer Kmele Foster and his coverage of The Central Park Karen. It isn’t a story to which I paid much attention when it was big last year, but it’s interesting to hear an actual investigative journalist (yes, there still are a few) covering what the bigshots at the New York Times didn’t think was worth revealing to their readers.

Quick recap: a white woman, Amy Cooper, was walking her unleashed dog in Central Park when a black man, Christian Cooper (no relation), asked her to tether her dog as required by the park rules. In the ensuing exchange, Ms. Cooper reports (and Mr. Cooper confirms) that Mr. Cooper said:

Look, if you’re gonna do what you want, I’m gonna do what I want, and you’re not going to like it.

Ms. Cooper says that was the basis for her claim, on her subsequent 911 call, that she was being threatened.

So how does the New York Times report this statement, which would seem to be an essential element of the story?

They don’t — at least, they don’t for the first couple of stories. The first story simply, well, lies about it, claiming that it was Mr. Cooper’s decision to make a video recording of the encounter that upset Ms. Cooper. It isn’t until two weeks later that the paper finally mentions the quotation. But, as Mr. Foster describes it in the podcast (at 54:35):

Two weeks later… where they did in fact at least mention that [Ms. Cooper and Mr. Cooper] had quote “exchanged words,” in that article the Times does eventually get around to quoting Christian Cooper saying, “if you’re gonna do what you wanna do I’m gonna do what I wanna do, but you’re not gonna like it,” but not until 2,300 words into a 2,500 word story. You don’t get the actual threat that he issued to her until you’ve already read about Amy Cooper’s years-old affair with a married man that ended in a lawsuit, and Mr. Cooper’s childhood history of birdwatching, his love of comic books, his graduation from Harvard. They made an editorial decision to bury the question marks around the bit of moral clarity that they seemed to be going for with this story.

I have no strong opinions about Ms. Cooper and Mr. Cooper, other than that I probably wouldn’t enjoy hanging around with either of them. Once you’ve learned the detail of the account, he comes across as an insensitive righteous jerk, she as a perhaps not entirely stable woman. But we should all have an opinion about a national press that is so willing to sacrifice integrity to further a narrative.

PS And if you listen as far as the last 15 minutes of the interview, to Ms. Cooper’s description of how quickly and how horribly people responded to the appearance of Mr. Cooper’s 40-second video on Twitter, perhaps you’ll conclude — if you haven’t already — that Twitter is a loathsome and destructive force, a platform that excels at empowering mobs of angry and vicious people to lash out without thought or knowledge. Twitter is a force for civic evil.

Published in Journalism
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 110 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

     I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    • #1
  2. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette: But we should all have an opinion about a national press that is so willing to sacrifice integrity to further a narrative.

    The story was really a nothing, but as you say, the narrative the media is pushing is really important here and it is in EVERY story where one person is white and the other is black.

    This needs to be understood, and this story is a good example of it – the media is trying to vilify white people. It isn’t about the truth or what happened. They are simply trying to paint the picture that racism is alive and white people are bad/evil.

    • #2
  3. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    You don’t understand, man. Every black man who encounters a white woman is just another Emmit Till in waiting.

    Or so the theory goes. If we can’t get passed that, we’re doomed.

    • #3
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Everything is about keeping people stirred up and angry so they can control us.

    • #4
  5. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    You can lie by commission, or you can lie by omission. It’s a dark art whichever one you choose. The New York Times is a master of the dark arts.

    • #5
  6. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Debauchery is a good word for it.

    I hate everyone involved in this story.

     

    • #6
  7. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Debauchery is a good word for it.

    I hate everyone involved in this story.

     

    Hate is an awfully big word. I think Twitter probably deserves it, and perhaps those sad miserable people who truly delight in joining the mob. The two individuals at the center of the story strike me mostly as people with poor judgment, particularly in the case of the man: if my sympathies are with anyone, it’s with the woman here. 

    • #7
  8. Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Democracy) Coolidge
    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Democracy)
    @GumbyMark

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    • #8
  9. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    She did get her dog back, eventually. But not the rest. And she remains of hiding.

    Damn the mob. 

    • #9
  10. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    Lesson learned:  leash your dog.

    • #10
  11. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    Lesson learned: leash your dog.

    Wrong lesson.

    • #11
  12. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Hate is an awfully big word.

    Well it’s pretty clear that you are much nicer than I am, Henry.

    • #12
  13. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Hate is an awfully big word.

    Well it’s pretty clear that you are much nicer than I am, Henry.

    Well, much older anyway.

    • #13
  14. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    Lesson learned: leash your dog.

    Wrong lesson.

    Really?  Do you think any of it would have happened, if she’d had her dog on a leash as the law apparently requires?

    It’s certainly better than if HE had lost his job, his career, and ended up leaving the country.  Especially if it happened because she made some complaints about “I was afraid that big black man was going to rape/kill me because my dog wasn’t leashed!  After all, he said “if you’re gonna do what you want, I’m gonna do what I want, and you’re not going to like it” right to my face!  What else could that mean?”

    “Escalation” can be unfortunate, but it’s important to remember which direction things come from.  And for that matter, when I lived in Phoenix for several years, they had passed a leash law and many people flouted it by snapping a leash onto their dog’s collar then letting it run loose with the leash following behind.  “See, it’s on a leash!”  The city actually had to add specifics to the law that a person had to be at the other end of the leash, and – because then people would send their small child out to “walk” the dog bigger than the child was, with predictable results – that person had to be able to maintain control of the animal.

     

    • #14
  15. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    Lesson learned: leash your dog.

    Wrong lesson.

    Really? Do you think any of it would have happened, if she’d had her dog on a leash as the law apparently requires?

    It’s certainly better than if HE had lost his job, his career, and ended up leaving the country. Especially if it happened because she made some complaints about “I was afraid that big black man was going to rape/kill me because my dog wasn’t leashed! After all, he said “if you’re gonna do what you want, I’m gonna do what I want, and you’re not going to like it” right to my face! What else could that mean?”

    “Escalation” can be unfortunate, but it’s important to remember which direction things come from. And for that matter, when I lived in Phoenix for several years, they had passed a leash law and many people flouted it by snapping a leash onto their dog’s collar then letting it run loose with the leash following behind. “See, it’s on a leash!” The city actually had to add specifics to the law that a person had to be at the other end of the leash, and – because then people would send their small child out to “walk” the dog bigger than the child was, with predictable results – that person had to be able to maintain control of the animal.

     

    Just out of curiosity, did you listen to the podcast? Because I did, and I completely disagree with you. 

    • #15
  16. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Wasn’t there something about Mr. Cooper enticing the unleashed dog with “treats” he carried for the purpose of disconcerting or threatening the owners of unleashed dogs? 

    • #16
  17. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Wasn’t there something about Mr. Cooper enticing the unleashed dog with “treats” he carried for the purpose of disconcerting or threatening the owners of unleashed dogs?

    He did carry treats. According to the report, he used them to entice dogs so he could put a leash on them. There was no mention of anything more sinister than that, but I’m sure that was scary enough.

    • #17
  18. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Wasn’t there something about Mr. Cooper enticing the unleashed dog with “treats” he carried for the purpose of disconcerting or threatening the owners of unleashed dogs?

    He did carry treats. According to the report, he used them to entice dogs so he could put a leash on them. There was no mention of anything more sinister than that, but I’m sure that was scary enough.

    Why is that “scary?”  And it wouldn’t even come up if the dogs are leashed as they’re supposed to be.

    • #18
  19. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Wasn’t there something about Mr. Cooper enticing the unleashed dog with “treats” he carried for the purpose of disconcerting or threatening the owners of unleashed dogs?

    He did carry treats. According to the report, he used them to entice dogs so he could put a leash on them. There was no mention of anything more sinister than that, but I’m sure that was scary enough.

    Yes, that and his words seemed awfully threatening to me.  As a woman, perhaps my threat perception when faced one-on-one with a man is different from that of the men here who seem to sympathize more with the man.  I do agree that the woman was wrong to have the dog unleashed, but the punishment far, far exceeds the “crime.”  His words certainly sounded threatening both to her and, with “treats” of unknown composition in his hand, to the dog.  There is also something creepy aggressive about him filming her calling the police.  

    An aside: why is there no means of redress for someone taping and posting a non-public person at a bad or humiliating moment?  Why is it not actionable if there are real and measurable effects (like loss of a job, home, dog, etc)?  Can any of the lawyers here answer this one?

    • #19
  20. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Caryn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Wasn’t there something about Mr. Cooper enticing the unleashed dog with “treats” he carried for the purpose of disconcerting or threatening the owners of unleashed dogs?

    He did carry treats. According to the report, he used them to entice dogs so he could put a leash on them. There was no mention of anything more sinister than that, but I’m sure that was scary enough.

    Yes, that and his words seemed awfully threatening to me. As a woman, perhaps my threat perception when faced one-on-one with a man is different from that of the men here who seem to sympathize more with the man. I do agree that the woman was wrong to have the dog unleashed, but the punishment far, far exceeds the “crime.” His words certainly sounded threatening both to her and, with “treats” of unknown composition in his hand, to the dog. There is also something creepy aggressive about him filming her calling the police.

    An aside: why is there no means of redress for someone taping and posting a non-public person at a bad or humiliating moment? Why is it not actionable if there are real and measurable effects (like loss of a job, home, dog, etc)? Can any of the lawyers here answer this one?

    If I were him, I’d certainly “film” her calling police as possible evidence of making a false police report.  The idea that “filming” her calling the police – or doing anything else, really, since nobody has any legal expectation of not being “filmed” while in public – is “threatening” I would consider dangerous in and of itself.  Dangerous from her, that is, not from him.  If he hadn’t “filmed” her, she could have made up any story she liked.

    And again, if she’d just had her dog leashed, as the law required, none of this happens.

    A few years ago, when I was living in Phoenix, people often let their dogs run loose in violation of leash laws etc.  One time, a dog came into my patio, and I closed the gate and called Animal Control to come get it.  While waiting for them, the (apparent) owner showed up and began making threats to ME, including claiming that she’d tell police I had attacked/threatened her, etc.  Fortunately I had the police dispatcher on the line, which meant what she said was heard, and recorded, by them.  I don’t think she was arrested when the police arrived, although she really should have been, but she got a good talking-to.

    Let’s be clear about something:  “filming” saves people – and not just police – a lot of trouble, and can even save lives.  If you have problems because you were “filmed” my guess is it was your fault, not the “filmer’s.”

    • #20
  21. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Caryn (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Basil Fawlty (View Comment):

    Wasn’t there something about Mr. Cooper enticing the unleashed dog with “treats” he carried for the purpose of disconcerting or threatening the owners of unleashed dogs?

    He did carry treats. According to the report, he used them to entice dogs so he could put a leash on them. There was no mention of anything more sinister than that, but I’m sure that was scary enough.

    Yes, that and his words seemed awfully threatening to me. As a woman, perhaps my threat perception when faced one-on-one with a man is different from that of the men here who seem to sympathize more with the man. I do agree that the woman was wrong to have the dog unleashed, but the punishment far, far exceeds the “crime.” His words certainly sounded threatening both to her and, with “treats” of unknown composition in his hand, to the dog. There is also something creepy aggressive about him filming her calling the police.

    An aside: why is there no means of redress for someone taping and posting a non-public person at a bad or humiliating moment? Why is it not actionable if there are real and measurable effects (like loss of a job, home, dog, etc)? Can any of the lawyers here answer this one?

    If I were him, I’d certainly “film” her calling police as possible evidence of making a false police report. The idea that “filming” her calling the police – or doing anything else, really, since nobody has any legal expectation of not being “filmed” while in public – is “threatening” I would consider dangerous in and of itself. Dangerous from her, that is, not from him. If he hadn’t “filmed” her, she could have made up any story she liked.

    And again, if she’d just had her dog leashed, as the law required, none of this happens.

    A few years ago, when I was living in Phoenix, people often let their dogs run loose in violation of leash laws etc. One time, a dog came into my patio, and I closed the gate and called Animal Control to come get it. While waiting for them, the (apparent) owner showed up and began making threats to ME, including claiming that she’d tell police I had attacked/threatened her, etc. Fortunately I had the police dispatcher on the line, which meant what she said was heard, and recorded, by them. I don’t think she was arrested when the police arrived, although she really should have been, but she got a good talking-to.

    Let’s be clear about something: “filming” saves people – and not just police – a lot of trouble, and can even save lives. If you have problems because you were “filmed” my guess is it was your fault, not the “filmer’s.”

    Sure, tell Derek Chauvin that.   And, no, I do not give blanket permission to anyone who wants to film me and post to the world my embarrassing or humiliating moments just by virtue of being in public.  There is–or at least should be–some presumption of personal space and privacy, even outside. 

    • #21
  22. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Caryn (View Comment):
    Sure, tell Derek Chauvin that.

    His situation could be a whole lot worse without the video, and of course the main problems there are not the video etc, but the bias of media, fear among jurors, etc.  And if he does get a reversal on appeal, it will likely be because the video shows that the biased accusations against him – “murder” etc – are bogus.  Not having video would not make his situation better.  Remember the claims people were making about him, before the video was released?  And what people were claiming about the “murder” of Michael Brown before THAT video was released?  etc.

    And, no, I do not give blanket permission to anyone who wants to film me and post to the world my embarrassing or humiliating moments just by virtue of being in public.

    Your permission is irrelevant, that’s the point. And for good reason too.  Would you require TV news cameras to get “model releases” from everyone who happens to be at or pass by some event, etc?  That’s just one example.  You may think “well obviously that’s different” but who decides?  And when?  And based on what?  Grocery stores have cameras to – among other things – prevent insurance fraud by “slip and fall” people etc.  They don’t need your permission for that either.

    There is–or at least should be–some presumption of personal space and privacy, even outside. 

    But there’s not, fortunately in most situation.  Actually I would say fortunately in ALL situations, except for maybe the one person who got falling-down drunk or whatever.  But again, that’s nobody’s fault but their own.  And if you’re not a movie star or political figure or something, even if you are “filmed” falling-down drunk or  whatever, it likely won’t be of interest to anyone anyway.

    • #22
  23. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    Henry Racette: you’ll conclude — if you haven’t already — that Twitter is a loathsome and destructive force, a platform that excels at empowering mobs of angry and vicious people to lash out without thought or knowledge. Twitter is a force for civic evil.

    The last time I was on Twitter was the day Andrew Brietbart died and the the scum of the earth percolated up out of their cesspool ooze and rejoiced in his death. All with perfect anonymity of course 

    • #23
  24. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Gumby Mark (R-Meth Lab of Demo… (View Comment):

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    I didn’t pay a whole lot of attention to this story at the time either. But, my impression at the time was that this incident was much ado about nothing.

    It was, but she lost her dog, her job, her career, and ended up leaving the country because of it.

    Lesson learned: leash your dog.

    Wrong lesson.

    It’s an alternate lesson, not a “wrong” lesson.

     

    • #24
  25. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Caryn (View Comment):
    Sure, tell Derek Chauvin that.

    His situation could be a whole lot worse without the video, and of course the main problems there are not the video etc, but the bias of media, fear among jurors, etc. And if he does get a reversal on appeal, it will likely be because the video shows that the biased accusations against him – “murder” etc – are bogus. Not having video would not make his situation better. Remember the claims people were making about him, before the video was released? And what people were claiming about the “murder” of Michael Brown before THAT video was released? etc.

    And, no, I do not give blanket permission to anyone who wants to film me and post to the world my embarrassing or humiliating moments just by virtue of being in public.

    Your permission is irrelevant, that’s the point. And for good reason too. Would you require TV news cameras to get “model releases” from everyone who happens to be at or pass by some event, etc? That’s just one example. You may think “well obviously that’s different” but who decides? And when? And based on what? Grocery stores have cameras to – among other things – prevent insurance fraud by “slip and fall” people etc. They don’t need your permission for that either.

    There is–or at least should be–some presumption of personal space and privacy, even outside.

    But there’s not, fortunately in most situation. Actually I would say fortunately in ALL situations, except for maybe the one person who got falling-down drunk or whatever. But again, that’s nobody’s fault but their own. And if you’re not a movie star or political figure or something, even if you are “filmed” falling-down drunk or whatever, it likely won’t be of interest to anyone anyway.

    Chauvin’s situation will only be helped by the police body cameras, not by anything collected by the group of cellphone cameras pointed at him.  Those latter cameras–and the viral video sold around the world–launched riots, mayhem, murder, and a complete upending of our cultural narrative.  You call this a good thing?  And it’s a good thing for someone to have a bad day, a bad few minutes melt-down or lack of courtesy in a store or on an airplane, filmed and posted on the internet for…what?  For what good end?  To humiliate a perfect stranger?  To entertain? Whom?  You think this is a good way to go about in society?  I certainly don’t want to live where you do.  Are you so perfect that you never say or do something that you’d find embarrassing were it to be filmed without your knowledge and posted on the internet?   Kudos to you if that’s the case; I’ve never met someone so perfect.

    • #25
  26. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    kedavis, I have a correction to your last.  I don’t think that there was any video of the Michael Brown shooting.

    There was video of Brown committing a shoplifting and semi-robbery, pushing a store clerk, shortly before he attacked the cop and was justifiably shot.

    • #26
  27. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    kedavis, I have a correction to your last. I don’t think that there was any video of the Michael Brown shooting.

    There was video of Brown committing a shoplifting and semi-robbery, pushing a store clerk, shortly before he attacked the cop and was justifiably shot.

    I thought the cop that Michael Brown attacked had a body camera, but in that case it may have been more about additional witnesses and the autopsy report which showed that the “witnesses” who claimed Brown was just “gunned down” were totally lying.  Of course, the autopsy report on George Floyd was similarly exonerating, but it’s been largely ignored or distorted.  It still exists for the appeal process though.

    • #27
  28. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Caryn (View Comment):

    Chauvin’s situation will only be helped by the police body cameras, not by anything collected by the group of cellphone cameras pointed at him. Those latter cameras–and the viral video sold around the world–launched riots, mayhem, murder, and a complete upending of our cultural narrative. You call this a good thing? And it’s a good thing for someone to have a bad day, a bad few minutes melt-down or lack of courtesy in a store or on an airplane, filmed and posted on the internet for…what? For what good end? To humiliate a perfect stranger? To entertain? Whom? You think this is a good way to go about in society? I certainly don’t want to live where you do. Are you so perfect that you never say or do something that you’d find embarrassing were it to be filmed without your knowledge and posted on the internet? Kudos to you if that’s the case; I’ve never met someone so perfect.

    I’m not perfect, but I strive not to “act up/out” in public, and if I did, and if it was recorded and exposed, I certainly wouldn’t blame the recorder.  Plus since I’m a nobody, there would be no reason for anyone to be interested in anything I do.

    • #28
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Just for the record, the media narrative was that she felt threatened by being filmed. Her claim, and it is supported by Mr. Cooper’s comment, is that she felt threatened when he said that he would do something she wouldn’t like.

    Given that she was in an isolated place, that her call to 911 could not be completed because of the poor connection, that he was trying to entice her dog away from her, and that he had said something threatening, I don’t find her reaction particularly unreasonable. What is captured on video – again, for those who haven’t bothered listening to the podcast – is her increasingly frantic attempts to talk to the 911 operator who simply said, again and again, that she could not hear her.

    If the lady chose to violate the leash rules, it isn’t up to some random citizen to threaten her and attempt to force compliance. The lesson to be learned here is not that we should simply comply with all the rules so that people don’t threaten us in isolated places. The lesson to be learned here is that the media will misrepresent a story in order to sell a narrative, and that people can be punished far beyond anything the situation warrants by our censorious and hyper reactive mobs.

    • #29
  30. kedavis Inactive
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Just for the record, the media narrative was that she felt threatened by being filmed. Her claim, and it is supported by Mr. Cooper’s comment, is that she felt threatened when he said that he would do something she wouldn’t like.

    Just for the record, the media narrative was that she felt threatened by being filmed. Her claim, and it is supported by Mr. Cooper’s comment, is that she felt threatened when he said that he would do something she wouldn’t like.

    Given that she was in an isolated place, that her call to 911 could not be completed because of the poor connection, that he was trying to entice her dog away from her, and that he had said something threatening, I don’t find her reaction particularly unreasonable. What is captured on video – again, for those who haven’t bothered listening to the podcast – is her increasingly frantic attempts to talk to the 911 operator who simply said, again and again, that she could not hear her.

    If the lady chose to violate the leash rules, it isn’t up to some random citizen to threaten her and attempt to force compliance. The lesson to be learned here is not that we should simply comply with all the rules so that people don’t threaten us in isolated places. The lesson to be learned here is that the media will misrepresent a story in order to sell a narrative, and that people can be punished far beyond anything the situation warrants by our censorious and hyper reactive mobs.

    Are you suggesting, as seems to be common on the left, that individual citizens have no ability, let alone any degree of obligation, to intervene when they see a crime being committed?  If anything, it seems far less risky to deal with someone letting their dog run unleashed, than someone beating their child in public, or a spouse, or a stranger…

    My interpretation of “if you want to do what you want to do, then I’ll do something you won’t like” easily translates to “report you for violating the leash law.”  Mental escalation seems uncalled for, and arguably under the circumstances, racist.  Why jump to a belief that, because you don’t have your dog on a leash, someone is threatening you with bodily harm?  It does sound rather female, but that doesn’t make it logical or reasonable.  And I don’t think the populace at large should feel limited by what the smallest, weakest, silliest woman might think of something.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.