Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

Being "Rational" would involve a rational argument.
I see none in your statement here.

And regarding "Civility",
It is quite clear that there was no good-natured bantering involved.

If people were to call 911 only in the situations you have in mind, they might not be able to even dial 911 since the criminal would rip the phone out of their hands, or, even worse, shoot them. So, in order for them to be able to "actually" talk to emergency long enough to get help -- they should be allowed to make a phone call when they are only "anticipating" something, before it happens.

This does not contradict presumption of innocence since making a report is not the same as charging someone with a crime. The defendant has no charges against them until the report is investigated. So her job is to make a report, and the job of others is to investigate the situation and decide wither the defendant is innocent or guilty.



I never said he stole it. I said he *attempted* to steal it by luring the dog. Okay I realize that he would have stopped if she were to put the dog on the leash. But the point is that stealing it was one of the "possibilities" in his mind -- namely, something he would have done if she didn't take it on the leash. And that would have been a crime.

You act as if it would have been justified because she didn't put the dog on the leash. No it wouldn't be. If she does something against the law, it wouldn't justify the other person doing something else against the law. Its not how it works. If he was so concerned that she kept her dog off the leash, he could have simply reported her to the authorities -- this would have been "within" the law and I would have agreed with it. But thats not what he did.



So are you saying that the definition of harassment is more strict among co-workers than elsewhere? Thats a bit surprising because I thought that harassment is about country-wide laws.

And if you do believe that at work things are more strict than outside work -- then why was that woman with the dog fired? I mean she didn't have that incident at work?



There was no way for her to know it. And acting in a way that makes people "think" they are under threat (whether its true or not) is, itself, a crime. Like what would happen if someone decides to point a gun at people just as a prank. So he isn't a threat, he is just fooling around. But others don't know it, so they can rightfully report him to police all the same.

If you address me with this sort of tone Pepe anticipate that I'm going to otherwise be less than polite.

Well that certainly is saying something

Did you read my role-play between a dispatch and Amy Cooper? If it hypothetically played out where she told the truth the dispatch would have warned her to not waste emergency services valuable time. These call operators are needed for real emergencies not to help a woman who is having an over-reaction to a situation which she should handled like an adult.



There is actually no evidence he tried to steal the dog, My best guess is he was trying to prove a point that because the dog was off the leash she was not in control of it. I have been in situations where I've walked my dog and had fools who let their dogs run off leash come screaming toward my dog barking and so his point is valid.



I think he is entitled to tell her to obey the signs. The police and council/municipality would agree. His specific comments were probably inappropriate (I agree triggered her deep set anxiety) but hardly anything warranting a 911 call especially since Amy Cooper had retrieved the dog and had it on leash when she made her call to 911 making fake claims.



It is contextual, depends on i) the content of your comments to your co-worker and how she perceives those comments and ii) the frequency of your attempts at conversing with her on non-work related matters.



The woman was fired because she lied to 911 and was caught on film. She claimed the man was threatening her and her dog but he was filming her saying these things and he was self-evidently doing nothing. She was caught insinuating that she would tell the 911 operator that she was being threatened by a "black man". Central Park has been the scene of attacks on women and the perpetrators have been black so Amy Cooper knew exactly she was doing. Her actions could have easily resulted in Christian Cooper getting assaulted and arrested by police but she obviously did not care.



The woman was on a $170,000 salary and is a vice president of a major corporation in NY. Senior managers of such companies are quick thinking individuals and her area of expertise is risk management. If anybody on the planet could have assessed the risk of the situation including the potential risks and ramification it's her. She probably thought she was being smart.

I address *everybody* with this humorous "tone".
I am not going to make a special rule for you because you choose to take it personally and be offended.
If you don't like my style, avert your eyes.

You are looking for an argument.
I am responding rationally.
It is all black and white here, for all to see.
Meh.

If you're going to subject me to your attitude you'll be subjected to mine, if you don't like it don't respond to my posts in the first place or drop the obnoxious attitude. I won't tolerate it and you can whine all you like because I will never become tolerant of it. It's not my fault you get butthurt when you're treated the the same sort of snark you insist on treating other posters with.

I address *everybody* with this humorous "tone".
And I have used that youtube clip a number of times with other posters.
It is my "Schtick", as Ezras/Liiam would have said.
I am not going to change my style because you choose to take it personally.
If you don't like my it, avert your eyes.
Better yet, don't respond in an aggressive emotionalist way in the first place.

You are looking for an argument.
I am responding rationally.
It is all in type here, for all to see.
Meh.



I'm not the one who can't handle himself rationally.
You are the one who became offensive initially because you didn't like my personal assessment of the situation being discussed in this thread.
I had a problem with your aggressive response, simply because I had a different opinion to you.
As I said, it is all posted previously for all to see, who aggressively initiated this confrontation.

If this thread is locked, it will be due to your uncivil contributions.
The only criticism that can validly be levelled at me, imo, is my responding to you in a rational way, but by doing so, giving you additional opportunities to respond with vitriol.
I am willing to wear that. Meh.

To paraphrase you:
-I need to get my head out of my arse.
-I have an obnoxious attitude.
-I am a whiner.
-I got butthurt.
-I am snarky.

Aren't these personal attacks, rather than rational observations?

BTW,
Just making things up doesn't make it so.
I will let others decide which one of us has the greater emotional involvement/invested in this interaction.

EDIT:
Oops!
Double post, sort of.

As I recall, the gentleman in question was bird watching when the woman's dog came shambling up, potentially frightening away said birds. I can understand his ire.

He had the dog food with him, so he pre-planned the whole thing ahead of time. He didn't know it would be "her" but he knew "somebody" will forget to put the dog on the leash. So he was waiting for that "somebody" to start this kind of conflict with.

No, that's not what happened.

The woman and the dog were playing by themselves, and he didn't like that the dog was off-leash. So, he went over to them, and demanded she leash her dog.

So, you can understand her ire.

What would be an example of the real emergency? And how would the victim in that situation be able to make a phone call without being interrupted by either the phone getting ripped off their hands or a gun pointed at them?

The only solution I can think of is to allow people to make phone calls in cases of "anticipated" emergencies, before they become real. If you disagree with this, what else would you suggest?

Also, regardless of whether it is emergency or not, fact remains that the cops would have received the information that the guy was breaking the law. How can the cops "know" that somebody is breaking the law and choose not to do anything about it? Thats like them not doing their job.



Thats not what he said. What he said was could have been interpretted in at least three ways

a) He was saying that if she won't put her on leash he "will" in fact steal it, in order to "punish" her that way
b) He wasn't really going to steal it, he was just making an object lesson that somebody else might do it
c) He was going to physically attack her (the part about doing someting "she might not like" could have meant that)

You are guessing it is "b". But you don't KNOW its "b", you are only "guessing" it. If, instead, it happens to be either "a" or "c", then he is breaking the law and she has every right to call the cops.

If he wanted to make point "b", he could have made an appropriate conversation opener to make it clear thats what he meant. He "chose" not to do it, so it was his "choice" to scare her. Is it possible he still meant "b"? I guess. But purposely not saying its "b" and leaving her guessing suggests that he was getting a rise out of scaring her. And thats me giving him the benefit of the doubt since I don't even know it was "b".



As far as "telling her to obey the signs" -- he is entitled to do *that*, yes. But the part where he tried to lure the dog is where he went wrong.

What he should have said is "please put the dog on the leash or else I will call a police and complain about your dog being off leash". That would be perfectly fine, since both parts of this sentence are within the law.

On the other hand, taking the law into his own hands by luring the dog is where he went wrong.



Well, the dog actively resisted being on leash. I guess why the dog resisted is a different question. But she can't be responsible for "strangling" the dog if she was just trying to keep it on leash and the dog was the one who made it hard.

Perhaps the "way" in which she took it on leash is what triggered dogs anxiety, as in she did it too abruptly or something. But in this case it would be the guys fault since she would have done it less abruptly if the guy didn't scare her.



But you didn't ask about (i) and (ii). So how do you know that, whatever I did, was worse than what this guy was doing?



Once again, how would "anybody" ever make a successful 911 call if the criminals are actively attacking them in the middle of the call?



If it is so bad, then why did the guy ask for it through his behavior. So apparently he wasn't so worried about it or else he wouldn't have acted that way. So why should she be any more concerned about his well being than he is?



Nobody is a mind reader. Especially not in the situations where somebody does something nobody else does, so there is no prior experience to rely on.

Like QFT said,
It was a classic fight or flight situation.
She acted like a total tool.
She acted like a fallible human.

This is how it works:



https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-th ... se-2795194

Perfect find:

https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/im ... nd-anxiety

Well,
If that was the true story, I'd be pissed off, also,
But it might take some time for the true, errr, truth to be revealed.

There was mention of the dog destroying plants, but I haven't seen any evidence of that in the video.

My default position is to make a preliminary assessment and then adjust if need be when further information becomes apparent.
It isn't a complex process, but not everyone has the discipline. <beam>

A bit of a long bow there, imo.
He could have had dog treats in case he came across a vicious dog.
Clearly, the dog involved wasn't aggressive, but it may have been an opportunistic action on his part.
Perhaps he did want to take the dog "in custody".
Regardless, it wasn't a good look.

I have had my life and my pet's lives threatened, btw.

There was no attempt by Christian Cooper to remove her phone?


She should have handled it like an adult and retrieved her dog, put a leash on it and walked away. There is nothing else required?


I can't speak for why the police chose not to act, but I am sure any reasonable person would be glad they did not waste their resources calling SWAT on a dude with a camera


on point a) she retrieved her dog when she made the call so that's redundant
point b) probably
c) I doubt it, there's no evidence he intended to physically attack Amy


a is redundant (see my earlier point) and c is hypothetical because (as you say) we can't read his mind but all evidence points to Chrisitan Cooper not being a violent or threatening man.



Yes I agree with this point, I think he handled it poorly. He could have chosen his words more wisely which no doubt triggered Amy Cooper's implicit bias/fear of black males


Agreed, I would have done that too.



My understanding is that she may lose the dog for i) letting run amok off leash ii) strangling it when she was not in any danger but chose to make her dog stay still while she made a her fake call. The dog was from a shelter or something.



Why are you comparing yourself to this guy? Christian Cooper is a gay black male whose interaction with Amy Cooper has not the remotest connection to your interaction with your female co-worker??



He wasn't attacking her


Probably he didn't think about the impact of what he did. He did tell the papers later on that he was shocked people were sending Amy Cooper death threats and that he wanted people to stop since she had apologised. His response seemed quite decent to me.



That's true, which makes this event interesting to me. It is a classic example of a projective test (like a Rorshach's test) on implicit underlying thoughts/feelings a person has which (for Amt Cooper) revealed through being put in a position she was not expecting. Her reaction revealed that she thought she could weaponise police bias against black men to punish Christian Cooper. I am 99% sure her employer thought that too.....