Amy Cooper tells her side of the story

Post Reply New Topic

Bari Weiss is not a reliable or unbiased source. There was nothing in the article about Amy Cooper getting assaulted before so not sure where this came from? I also googled this extensively and found no supporting evidence for this assertion.

So the only thing new that Bari Weiss managed to dredge is that Christian Cooper had a run-in with another dog owner who was (for Weiss) conveniently black. That person was encouraged to report that Christian had been aggressive and intimidating.

The problem with this is we come back to square one which is the video taken by Christian Cooper (which could well have saved his life) where at no time was he anything but polite and courteous.

How Christian behaved with some random person has no relevance to Amy Cooper as her response was based on empirical evidence presented in the video which don't align with Bari Weiss's hypothesis that Christian is some type of bully.

She should have just leashed the dog. Nobody in my neighborhood keeps a dog unleashed until they get to the dog park. They let dogs run around unleashed under controlled conditions. They make sure the dogs are properly trained.

Maybe, the guy was being overzealous about enforcing “the rules.” But she was more in the wrong than he was.

There were signs, she was flouting the rules openly.

Christian was entitled to tell her to leash her dog She was angry at being called out. Probably not used to it, hence she overreacted like a typical Karen.

Back to the "attack the messenger because the message isn't agreeable" I see...



Had you looked at the article I had linked, you'd know it was based on an interview with the person who had interviewed Ms Cooper.

The particular portion was from around 35:09 in the podcast that ASPartOfMe linked to in the first post of this thread.

Listening to her interview (from around 14:25 to around 18:00 in the podcast), it seems she had been with the dog in another (unfamiliar) area of the park and was walking home (The section prior to this describes her approach to dogs), and prior to Mr Cooper starting to film she was trying to get her dog back to put leash on it.

It's certainly interesting to hear her account, along with other information contained in the podcast - The reporting I had seen suggested she had been in the "ramble" all the time, rather than merely passing through.

I'd be interested in your take on something from the article I linked earlier:

The article is simply some of the content from the interview Bari had with Kmele Foster, discussing Kmele's interview with Ms Cooper, along with other recordings\research he had done on the topic, and so doesn't contain all the details from the podcast (or Kmele's interview with Ms Coopoer).

The "conveniently black" person discussed is the person who had contacted various media sources following Ms Cooper's story being published at the time it occurred, and whose email to those media organisations (which is what is referenced by Bari) is also included in Ms Cooper's current filings in case against her former employer (It has been posted on this site several times in the past, to which you replied, so you were already aware of this).



Just because a person who has complete control of the situation (with regards to the filming and what is included\excluded from it) presents in one manner, doesn't mean that was the way they acted prior to what they decided to present... Try the podcast from around 36:20 - 40:22

It's similar to the type of person who puts on a public "I'm against sexism (or racism)" front for public viewing, yet happily weaponises sex (or race), or utilises sexist (or racist) terms when it suits them.



Maybe listen to the podcast that ASPartOfMe linked to in the first post (30:27 - 35:14)... His approach was the same with a number of people, not just one - And Ms Cooper was unaware of any of these other occasions he had acted in that way.

I'd suggest that you might benefit from listening to the whole podcast, simply due to the additional information it contains (not expecting you to revise your opinion - simply for an understanding of the "other side" of the interaction), but I feel that this would be futile.

When Karen meets Karen?

The man was right, and the woman was wrong.  End of story.

The man admits he takes dog treats with him to the park, so he can lure off-leash pets away from their owners.

He has a history of doing this.

That is a New York state crime called "DOG STEALING".

2010 New York Code
AGM - Agriculture & Markets
Article 26 - (350 - 379) ANIMALS
366 - Dog stealing.

2. To entice, seize or molest any dog, while it is being held or led
by any person or while it is properly muzzled or wearing a collar with
an identification tag attached, except where such action is incidental
to the enforcement of some law or regulation;

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2 ... le-26/366/

It is over a year later. The podcast added some new context
, that there had been tension in that area between dog people and bird people. That Christian had done this before and had been attacked for it twice before and that possibly explains why Amy was confused when in her perception Christian went from aggressive to meek. That her “hysterical” reaction was a result of the bad connection shown on her call that was played on the podcast. All the added context in the Podcast did was confirm the conclusions I reached early on. All this was, was a kerfuffle between two neurotic New Yorkers that has become an undeserving Rorschach test because it occurred the same day George Floyd was murdered.

Lets discuss the obvious. She claimed she was just being descriptive when she used “African-American”. That might have been convincing if it was used only in her call to the cops and she described other physical characteristics. Using “African-American” when threatening to call the police was a racist act. She claims she is in hiding as has been unfairly treated a position Christian agrees with. Giving an interview is not the way to make the world forget about you, not the way to get your normal life back.

Christian seems to have a few screws loose. Going up to strange unleashed dogs and trying to lure them away is reckless. Most people are frightened by unleashed dogs. Saying what I am about to do you won’t like is a threat. It can be excused, he might have had legitimate reasons, it was still a threat.

Conclusion, they were both as*holes that day.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 05 Aug 2021, 1:50 pm, edited 10 times in total.

So a black person saying while european is also a racist act? Interesting how the law works.

Probably because this label caught on organically and wasn't just an exercise in branding.

Ironically you're using a brand that anti-progressives did quite a good job at pushing. I underlined it in case you didn't notice as you used it.

Has anyone, even once been documented to have called the cops and tried to use the phrase European-American to indicate what a dire threat they were facing?

apples ≠ oranges

Good branding is anticipating what language is going to grow organically and taking advantage of it at the right time. Despite the stereotype of marketers creating demand when none is there most successful marketing campaigns take advantage of something that is there on some level.

Conservatives and Right Wingers have been successful up to this point with “woke”, “SJW” and “Critical Race Theory” . Up to this point is the operative phrase we will see how it plays out. IMHO these are exceptions to the rule. When it comes to creating language and expanding and altering the meaning of words and terms in the last few years the progressives have been more successful, it has not been close.

I am just watching the video right now...and looks like that woman is like strangling her poor dog while she calls the cops, where is the outrage about that part?

Also, a lot of places have rules that dogs have to be leashed, so it is reasonable to ask someone to put their dog on a leash if its not.