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. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    I’m curious how many people share your view. I suspect it’s a minority.

    • #31
  2. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    I’m curious how many people share your view. I suspect it’s a minority.

    That might very well be, and it doesn’t bother me in the least.  If only because, as I remember each day, most people have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition.

    • #32
  3. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):
    That might very well be, and it doesn’t bother me in the least.  If only because, as I remember each day, most people have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition.

    I’m not at all confident that intelligence determines ones views on this matter. I think it likely has more to do with empathy, compassion, and things like that.

    My impression is that the woman was frightened and panicked. No one was injured — except that she lost her job and her home, and now lives in hiding and in fear.

     That seems wrong.

    • #33
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    That might very well be, and it doesn’t bother me in the least. If only because, as I remember each day, most people have an IQ of 100 or less, by definition.

    I’m not at all confident that intelligence determines ones views on this matter. I think it likely has more to do with empathy, compassion, and things like that.

    My impression is that the woman was frightened and panicked. No one was injured — except that she lost her job and her home, and now lives in hiding and in fear.

    That seems wrong.

    Well I think less-intelligent people are more likely to act on impulse, for starters.  And to think “you won’t like what I do” means “I’m going to physically attack you” rather than “I’m going to report you to Animal control.”

    I agree the outcome was unfortunate at least in terms of degree, but Stuff Happens, and in most cases a situation like that doesn’t go nearly as far.

    And consider what might have happened, what could have happened to the man, if he hadn’t been recording her.  Police have shown up and started shooting, for less.  In some cases actually shooting and even killing the person who called the police, as in that case in Minnesota not too long ago.

    • #34
  5. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    I think the vast majority of viral videos are about “nobody” people, such as the persons in this story.  They are not usually about celebrities or well known people.

    • #35
  6. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

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

    Cui bono?  Keeping us divided is good for Democrats and the CCP, who both have influence over the NYT.   Corporate media is one big psy-op these daze.

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    I think the vast majority of viral videos are about “nobody” people, such as the persons in this story. They are not usually about celebrities or well known people.

    In this case, Amy Cooper’s apparent/plausible racism likely played a part.

    • #37
  8. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    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.

    Indeed. Well said. 

    • #38
  9. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    MarciN (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    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.

    Indeed. Well said.

    And they will sell a narrative even if it doesn’t sell more papers. 

    • #39
  10. Al Sparks Thatcher
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    So I listened to the podcast.

    I found it jaw dropping (figuratively).  My perception of the incident changed considerably and I became more sympathetic towards Amy Cooper.  Before I listened to the podcast, I had a plague on both their houses attitude towards both.  Even before the podcast, I had a jaundiced eye over Chris Cooper’s filming (visually recording) of her in the first place.  He was approaching her not the other way around.

    Here are the facts that changed my perception.  Chris Cooper doesn’t have a dog, but he’s carrying dog treats.  The reporter investigating the incident says that there had been other incidents by Chris doing the same thing to other dog owners, in the same threatening way.  Chris does not dispute this.

    Amy Cooper says that Chris’s whole demeanor changed from a threatening one to passive aggressive (my phrasing) after filming started (which creeped her out even more).

    As a part of the piece some background was also provided.  It turns out that there have been tensions (and some hostilities) between two groups of people in Central Park – between dog owners and bird watchers.  Chris is an activist on the bird watcher side, and has basically been engaged in behavior that smacks of vigilantism, but doesn’t quite cross the line.  There is no doubt that he knows what he is doing and knows just how far to carry it.

    He seems to have been deliberately provocative, and as part of his schtick he hides behind his enhanced status as an African American.

    I am a city boy at heart, but I’ve lived most of my life in smaller towns that are rural in nature.  Since Covid I’ve become grateful I live where I live.  But the small window into city politics over dog walking makes me even gladder I don’t live in the big city.

    I like dogs, but don’t love them enough to own and care for one.  But if I did, I live in an area that would be a heck of a lot friendlier towards my dog ownership.

    Oh, and it’s clear with the facts presented, she did not file a false police report.  It’s also clear the DA had the same facts that were presented by the podcast.

    • #40
  11. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    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?

    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?

    Mr. Cooper has no legal authority to enforce leash laws in a public park. He is not a city parks employee, nor is he an NYPD officer. The legal standard would be if Ms. Cooper was in fear of being assaulted it is her perception based upon Mr. Cooper’s statement is all that matters.

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Doug Watt (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?

    Mr. Cooper has no legal authority to enforce leash laws in a public park. He is not a city parks employee, nor is he an NYPD officer. The legal standard would be if Ms. Cooper was in fear of being assaulted it is her perception based upon Mr. Cooper’s statement is all that matters.

    “Authority to enforce the leash laws” would seem to consist of giving her a citation requiring a court appearance, etc, under the legal authority of government.  But that isn’t what he was doing.

    As mentioned previously, when I lived in Phoenix and people let their dogs run loose, I took photos etc – which Mr Cooper also did – and reported them to Animal Control, but if I was able to capture the animal that wasn’t “illegal” or “enforcing the leash laws” especially if they were on my property.

    In those cases I turned the dogs over to Animal Control, and if the owner showed up I told them that’s what was happening, and they would need to deal with Animal Control which could involve court costs and fines up to $1,000 as well as having to provide proof of licensing and vaccination etc.

    But it was the city and county government in the form of Animal Control fining them etc, not me.  I wasn’t “enforcing the leash laws” myself.  I couldn’t force anyone to pay a fine, or get their dog vaccinated and licensed, etc, or take the dog away if they didn’t or if it had attacked people etc, or put them in jail if they refused…

    • #42
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Men threatening women should be forbidden. 

    I guess kedavis disagrees. Threats are OK.

     

    • #43
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    It’s interesting that the interviewers presented her version of events as facts rather than claims.  Why are we assuming that she’s telling the truth while the man is being dishonest in his presentation?

    • #44
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Men threatening women should be forbidden.

    I guess kedavis disagrees. Threats are OK.

    “Threatening” is a relative term, and if this is a Karen we’re discussing, welll…..

    It’s pretty likely that “Karen” would have taken anything anyone said, as a “threat,” especially given awareness that she was violating the law…

    If he’d said “You need to leash your dog, it’s the law” and she thinks/says “or what, you’ll attack me?  THREAT!!!”

    What’s the difference?  I don’t accept that someone else gets to decide what someone means based on their neuroses, or sexist or racist attitudes…  If you believe that, then crazy people must be left alone to wreak whatever havoc they might wish, since otherwise they might feel “threatened.”  And we can’t have THAT!

     

    • #45
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    It’s interesting that the interviewers presented her version of events as facts rather than claims. Why are we assuming that she’s telling the truth while the man is being dishonest in his presentation?

    Believe All Women?  (Except when they accuse a Clinton, or a Biden…)

    You add to the point, though, that he’s fortunate to have recorded events.

    • #46
  17. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    I felt quite sorry for her, to be honest. I don’t know how accurate her claims are, but even setting aside wilful dishonesty that still leaves the field open for unwell. I mean if someone is actually threatening you why would they not grab and break your phone first thing?  And the whole feeling entitled to ignore leash laws does get my back up.  Another thing the interviewers didn’t address. Hmmm. 

    • #47
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I felt quite sorry for her, to be honest. I don’t know how accurate her claims are, but even setting aside wilful dishonesty that still leaves the field open for unwell. I mean if someone is actually threatening you why would they not grab and break your phone first thing? And the whole feeling entitled to ignore leash laws does get my back up. Another thing the interviewers didn’t address. Hmmm.

    Yes it’s easy to argue that she shouldn’t have had as many consequences as she did, but that’s really not HIS fault.  Blame the media, etc, for making such a big stink about it.

    • #48
  19. Al Sparks Thatcher
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Zafar (View Comment):

    It’s interesting that the interviewers presented her version of events as facts rather than claims. Why are we assuming that she’s telling the truth while the man is being dishonest in his presentation?

    Actually, he confirms many of her allegations, including that he 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.”

    And the reporter independently confirmed that he’s had similar incidents with others in the park.

    Where is he being dishonest in his presentation?  He mostly confirms her allegations.

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Aaaaaand from NYMag;

    In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court late on Tuesday, and first reported on by Reuters, Cooper claimed that Franklin Templeton wrongfully fired her as an insurance portfolio manager without conducting an inquiry into the exchange in Central Park. First, the firm suspended Cooper and said it was conducting an investigation. But Cooper claims she was fired the next day without being contacted for such an inquiry. In the lawsuit, she also alleges that the reason Franklin Templeton did not engage in a probe was due to her gender and race. “Franklin Templeton perpetuated and legitimized the story of ‘Karen’ vs. an innocent African American to its perceived advantage, with reckless disregard for the destruction of Plaintiff’s life in the process,” her attorney Matthew Litt wrote.

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Aaaaaand from NYMag;

    In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court late on Tuesday, and first reported on by Reuters, Cooper claimed that Franklin Templeton wrongfully fired her as an insurance portfolio manager without conducting an inquiry into the exchange in Central Park. First, the firm suspended Cooper and said it was conducting an investigation. But Cooper claims she was fired the next day without being contacted for such an inquiry. In the lawsuit, she also alleges that the reason Franklin Templeton did not engage in a probe was due to her gender and race. “Franklin Templeton perpetuated and legitimized the story of ‘Karen’ vs. an innocent African American to its perceived advantage, with reckless disregard for the destruction of Plaintiff’s life in the process,” her attorney Matthew Litt wrote.

    That’s fine, maybe she’ll win the lawsuit.  But that wasn’t HIS fault either.

    • #51
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Al Sparks (View Comment):
    Actually, he confirms many of her allegations, including that he 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.”

    Yes, which turned out to be giving her dog a treat.

    She says he was acting threateningly – that’s why she called the police after threatening (imho) that she was going to tell them an African American man was…threatening her. There’s no proof that he was.  And in fact no arrests were made when the police arrived.

    The whole thing is weird, frankly. Aggressive Black Birdwatcher causes Dog Walker to call the police? What’s a birdwatcher going to do? ( I know I’m stereotyping, but that’s how it strikes me.)

    Also – it’s interesting that the interview closes by focusing on how she felt rather than on what he and she did.  To be honest that’s a pretty good illustration of privilege.

    • #52
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Al Sparks (View Comment):
    Actually, he confirms many of her allegations, including that he 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.”

    Yes, which turned out to be giving her dog a treat.

    She says he was acting threateningly – that’s why she called the police after threatening (imho) that she was going to tell them an African American man was…threatening her. There’s no proof that he was. And in fact no arrests were made when the police arrived.

    The whole thing is weird, frankly. Aggressive Black Birdwatcher causes Dog Walker to call the police? What’s a birdwatcher going to do? ( I know I’m stereotyping, but that’s how it strikes me.)

    Also – it’s interesting that the interview closes by focusing on how she felt rather than on what he and she did. To be honest that’s a pretty good illustration of privilege.

    Yes I think she was focused on her overwrought feelings more than anything else.  Which perhaps started by knowing that she was violating the law.

    • #53
  24. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    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.

    He carried dog treats and a dog leash on his birding expeditions?

    • #54
  25. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Men threatening women should be forbidden.

    I guess kedavis disagrees. Threats are OK.

    “Threatening” is a relative term, and if this is a Karen we’re discussing, welll…..

    It’s pretty likely that “Karen” would have taken anything anyone said, as a “threat,” especially given awareness that she was violating the law…

    If he’d said “You need to leash your dog, it’s the law” and she thinks/says “or what, you’ll attack me? THREAT!!!”

    What’s the difference? I don’t accept that someone else gets to decide what someone means based on their neuroses, or sexist or racist attitudes… If you believe that, then crazy people must be left alone to wreak whatever havoc they might wish, since otherwise they might feel “threatened.” And we can’t have THAT!

     

    Hey, you think it is just and fair for her to be in hiding from the witch hunt because she is a “Karen”. 

    Over her dog not being leashed, which is a stupid sort of law. Leash laws exist to make it easier for law enforcement. Out of control dogs is the problem. This man was seeking a confrontation about her dog not being leashed. 

    Bully for you and your support of cancel culture. From someone who hides his or her real identity. What a bold, bold stand you take. 

     

     

    • #55
  26. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    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.

    Its illegal in New York.  Karens lawyer is Robert Barnes and has a youtube show and he talks about the case.  Sadly it looks like its part of his two hour streasm.

    • #56
  27. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    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?

    She had the dog off leash because the local dog runs in New York parks were closed at the time due to Covid.  

    • #57
  28. ToryWarWriter Reagan
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    I think the vast majority of viral videos are about “nobody” people, such as the persons in this story. They are not usually about celebrities or well known people.

    In this case, Amy Cooper’s apparent/plausible racism likely played a part.

    Unlike you I have actually done some study of this case.  And I can say without a doubt the only person here who has been showing any apparent/plausible bigotry on this case is you.

    She is not a racist, as was determined by multiple accounts and at trial.  She is on the spectrum and was terrified by an encounter in the park and as was determined by the judge who dismissed her case WITH PREJUDICE.   Something that apparently you have a great deal of knowledge.

    I am leaving this thread at this time.  I have exceeded my tolerance of ignorant bigots for today.

    • #58
  29. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    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.

    I think the vast majority of viral videos are about “nobody” people, such as the persons in this story. They are not usually about celebrities or well known people.

    In this case, Amy Cooper’s apparent/plausible racism likely played a part.

    Unlike you I have actually done some study of this case. And I can say without a doubt the only person here who has been showing any apparent/plausible bigotry on this case is you.

    She is not a racist, as was determined by multiple accounts and at trial. She is on the spectrum and was terrified by an encounter in the park and as was determined by the judge who dismissed her case WITH PREJUDICE. Something that apparently you have a great deal of knowledge.

    I am leaving this thread at this time. I have exceeded my tolerance of ignorant bigots for today.

    Thank you.

     

    • #59
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Basil Fawlty (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.

    He carried dog treats and a dog leash on his birding expeditions?

    Not that hard to believe.  Where I lived in Phoenix, people often let their dogs run loose, illegally.  Being able to catch them and turn them over to Animal Control was a good thing.  A leash and treats would often be needed.  That he had a leash and treats with him suggests only that he’d been to the park more than once and knew what went on there.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.