Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

So you just confirmed what a lot of people observed. You are basically saying "Amy Cooper is wrong because she is upper class". Thats not a valid argument. Things should be looked at individual by individual, regardless of what class they are.

But since you brought it up, let me point out that you were talking about upper class vs lower class but you totally forgot about middle class. I, personally, don't see why should middle class have any more insentive to side with lower class than upper class. In fact, southerners are mostly lower middle class, yet they are mostly republican. On the other hand, people in academia are upper class, yet they are mostly democrat. If you are going to give lower class free handouts, then people who will be hurt the most will be middle class. I doubt that upper class millionares will be hurt by supporting the poor: they have plenty of money to spare. But the middle class very much would be hurt.

Anyway, like I said, thats besides the point. I just felt like I should address it since you brought it up.

she was ill-behaved regardless of her class. her upper class status is incidental. but the people who have taken sides on this seem divided by class- those on the left, mostly working and middle-class, were revolted by her bearing of false witness on the innocent man. those on the right, mostly entitled upper middle-class and upper class, sided with one of their own.

Well, we can only look at this from what we would have done in the situation, and how we would react afterwards (interesting to think you would imagine a person would focus on a person's race and not the potential threat they may have felt...). I'd imagine the appology would be through a combination of how this looks with hindsight, along with the framing of it by external partys as having happened with racist intent when it looks like it was a case of a racial (not racist) description being used.

Of course, those who wish to see racism will always see it, even when the intent or belief did not exist I guess it must be a form of appology for their own innermost thoughts...Or to make themselves feel superior because they can "see" the racism that others cannot because it did not exist and who then go on to try and convince others it existed in order to bolster their feelings of superiority.

Sadly this "wolf calling" of racism devalues the effect when it is legitimately needed, as well as forcing a divide between groups instead of trying to bring them together. If saying the "wrong thing" near someone is going to be (intentionally) incorrectly interpreted and so lead to an attack on themself, then why would they want anything to do with those people (and so communities splinter)? If the people affected, however, sought to discuss the problem and how it was caused, many issues could be peacfully resolved, but then this would detract from those insecure people who wish to show their own "superiority" by attacking another person for an accident/mistake that was made.

What is it that makes certain people wish to cause this sort of division (and seemingly gain such pleasure from it), rather than sitting down and discussing issues peacefully and coming to a successful resolution?

Not true. Southerners are mostly working class and middle class, yet they are on the right.



Not true either: people in academia are upper class yet they are on the left.

In any case, I also disagree with where you draw the line. You seem to put majority of middle class together with lower class. I disagree. If we are talking about the benefits that lower class receives, nobody in the middle class receives those benefits. If we are talking about the behavior, nobody in the middle class would act the way that guy acted. If you take racism, then people in the middle class aren't subject of racism either (if they happen to be white). In other words, if you take any of the issues that lower class is being "hated" for, then nobody in the middle class is in their shoes.

From what I have seen of American (and Australian) politics, it doesn't appear to be that way now.

While once the "left" were the party of and for the workers and the right for the "bosses", this has changed over the past decade(s).

Now, it appears that the left is the party of the "elite" and the (inner) city dwellers who look down on the lower classes and those who don't have the "sophistication" of those in the city because they feel they are "better" than them, and "know" what is best. The right, as a result, have taken in many of the disaffected who have seen what the left's opinion of them is ("deplorable", for example), or seen the result of their actions/decisions such as business shuting down\off-shoring, lower paying jobs going to those with no legal reason to be in the country at the expence of a citizen of the country getting the job, money going to vanity projects rather than being invested in the community, etc.

Over here in Australia, the "workers" party is now almost entirely made up of people who have never worked outside of a union office\government department\major city law firm, while the "party of the bosses" is made up of people who have run their own farms and small businesses. This leads to the "workers" party losing all insight into just what a worker experiences, whilst their opponents have lived through that and so can speak to workers on a similar level, rather than talking down to them as the left seemingly now do.

At present the left look like they are relying on their traditional supporters to not look too closely at (or assuming\hoping that they are too uneducated to be able to see) the background\life experience of those they need to vote for, taking for granted they will get certain demographics on their side with no need to actually do something that would benefit them. After all, saying "if you don't know who you will vote for, you aren't black" certainly indicates a degre of "ownership" of a portion of the population and their votes, and is much easier than saying that "we will do XYZ for your community if you vote for us"...The later may lead to questions as to why you haven't done XYZ in the past, considering how long we have supported you.

You are a sneaky one, always trying to make this about me (reminds of somebody else), you have called me names and suggest I lack empathy etc and now claim I derive pleasure from this?? I have just as much right to post here as you do

Let's stick to the facts of the case rather than draw a very long bow (your arguments are made on huge assumptions)

She went out of her way to let Christian know that if he didn’t stop recording her, she would "say that an African American man is threatening her". I posit she is infact the one who made the threat.

Do you know why she subsequently apologised? because she made a false police report and she was caught. Her employer is a hell of lot smarter about the law than you or I and they came to the same conclusion when they fired her racist ass

OK...Let's continue further back to the "inconvenient" facts.
She was "walking her dog" off a leash.
She was asked not to.
She declined the request
She was told (no indication of tone, nor of facial expresion) that is she didn't, the questioner would do what he wanted and she might not like it before removing a dog biscuit from his pocket (not premeditated in any way, naturally...He just carrys dog biscuits in the hope that one day he may get a dog of his own?)
He then turns on his phone's camera, having made what she is entitled to feel is a threat, in order to record the aftermath.

Not knowing the difference in height/build between the 2 participants, it's not possible to determine what (if any) impact they may also have had on the events.

Strangely, I don't imagine anyone would be thinking (or able to act) logically after feeling they have been threatened, seeing someone trying to deprive them of a possesion, and THEN having a camera pointed at them in such a short time.

But to some, it's a case of the ends "finding\triggering racism" rather than the means used to "get" it that counts in these naratives...And who cares how the victim of the veiled threat and who almost had her dog taken from her may feel, when we have the result we were after, right?

As to the appology: She had been accused in a public forum, where her accuser has "selective" evidence of the confrontation which is suportive of his side of the event purely because he arranged events PRIOR to commencing filming, starting when he felt it would favor him: What other option did she have available?

Why anyone would defend racism -- especially blatant racism -- is a complete mystery to me.

I have given a long explanation/assessment previously, which gives the pros and cons of both parties.
It may seem to be, but it isn't a black and white, errr, situation.
Superficially, most people would agree with you, I imagine.
But if you dig deeper, and have a good grasp of human psychology, you will understand there is more to it than you think.

I don't expect you to agree with me.
I know "da man", meaning you.

I seem to be going in circles, but's lets continue this dance.

It's not reasonable to threaten to call 911 and make a false police report when all he is doing is standing there. However much you justify what's going on in her head does not make it ok to call the police.



It might have escaped your notice but this particular incident is reported to be one of the major triggers that thousands have gone to street to support George Floyd, people can read racism (even white people know this is racism). So it's not just one isolated poster on WP it's millions of reasonable people around the world who see this as racist.



She apologised because a) The New York Police Department interviewed Christian Cooper and determined he did nothing wrong and b) the video showed what she really did.

Again are you saying that you know something that police psychologists, police officers and Amny Cooper's employer did not consider when the decision was made to ignore her claims and then fire her from her job??

If anything the police should have classified this as a hate crime so she is fortunate she just lost her job

This is like Trayvon Martin (black) and George Zimmerman (white).

George Zimmerman was told to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS".

George Zimmerman was told, "YOU ARE NOT POLICE".

George Zimmerman was told, "DON'T PROVOKE PEOPLE".

Christian Cooper is in the same situation as Zimmerman.

Both think they see someone breaking a law, both feel entitled to investigate, both end up provoking the person they're investigating, both cause a bad outcome to that person.

Erm Zimmerman killed Martin

In this story the only real victim was the dog who Amy Cooper nearly strangled to death so she could could make a false police report

Christian Cooper recorded a woman trying to send the police to harm him; Zimmerman murdered a child. It's really not honest to pretend the two are equivalent. It's disappointing to hear you stoop to this.

The only Cooper who might have lost their life in this situation isn't the one who made the call and we both know it.

I haven't.

Yup.

Are you OK with people like Zimmerman, Christian Cooper, or the McMichaels, confronting people they *think* committed a crime?

Are you OK with them acting as law enforcement and making demands on people?

Are you OK with them provoking the person they confront (getting in their space, doing stuff to agitate them) ?