I've been a PI for 40 years. I understand, on a level above almost all, that as Oscar Wilde said, "The truth is never pure and rarely simple." I see news stories w/ a professionally critical eye. I have worked cases that were reported on in print and tv that had BASIC facts wrong. This is routine. The errors were usually a result of laziness, incompetence, stupidity. But, some were agenda driven. I'm mostly retired but work a case on occasion. A couple years back I worked a case defending a priest charged w/ felony molestation. I think you can visualize the reporting on this case. Well, the trial was a week long and the jury deliberated just a couple hours, acquitting the priest of all charges. As one juror said, they didn't understand why charges were even brought. Reporting has always been flawed. It has gotten exponentially worse in the past decade or so. If you want good reporting, be critical and selective. All reading this have subscribed to Bari Weis. She, Greenwald, Taibbi and a few others are intellectually honest reporters. They are on the endangered species list.
I used to work for a DA. One particular case I'd sneak down to the courtroom to watch everyday. I sat in the gallery and a local reporter, who knew me from a different case I had worked, sat by me so she could ask me what had just happened, why, and what importance the event(s) had.
Inevitably, the next day, the article that got published not only missed the key events but the events reported were incorrect. This, even though I'd explained to her what had happened the previous day in court.
To your last point NS, indeed. Weis, Taibbi, and Greenwald are not members of my general political tribe. But I most definitely claim them in my other tribe that aspires to learn objective truths before forming opinions in my much more subjective tribe. They are revolutionaries bringing back my faith that journalists can conduct themselves with integrity and a passion to root out the truth.
That dispassionate, objective, fact-based journalism is considered revolutionary today says all you need to know about how far we as a society have fallen down the rabbit hole.
Xi, Great comment. I began my investigator career working for the prosecuting attorney's office in KC back in the 70's. It was rewarding work but I wanted to make money and went into private practice. Most of my private investigative work the past 40 years has been civil, working mostly for defendants, but also for plaintiff's. Like you, I'm not a liberal, although I was in my youth. I think of what Churchill said, "Anyone who is not liberal when young doesn't have a heart. Anyone not conservative when older doesn't have a brain." What Weis, Taibbi and Greenwald represent is, as I said, intellectual honesty. They are vilified by their former "friends" for having the temerity to be straight reporters. I have long thought the greatest liberation one can achieve is not giving a rat's ass what other people think of you. There are people for whom I do care what they think of me. They all fit at my dining room table.
I'm no private investigator, but I knew enough to read this Central Park birding guy's Twitter feed back when this happened, so the actual circumstances were pretty easy to deduce.
I'm not sure how Phelps-Roper gets away with saying "New evidence comes to light" and it's mainly the dude's Twitter feed from the time of the event.
People get in pissing matches like this all of the time, this one made them both look ugly but she suffered far too much due to the unforgiving power of the social media narrative these days. The real story is that social media is driving society to lack considered collective rationality in favor of reactive emotionalism. The Histrionic States of America.
He basically self-appointed to police the breaking of the dog leashing rules in the ramble because he is a birdwatcher and it annoys him that people break the rules a lot. Probably partly because he's annoyed that people flout the rules, and partly because he's trying to watch the birds and the dogs scare them off.
That makes sense. I'm not a birdwatcher and it annoys the hell out of me when selfish inconsiderate dog owners allow their dogs to run wild in places where that is expressly forbidden. I love dogs but hell, no.
You don't seem to know much about dogs. A treat as "the best and most effective defense"? It sounds to me like you're just trying to rationalize his behavior.
I have seen a number of news reports/articles about matters of which I was deeply familiar. In every case the reporters either completely missed the point or deliberately obscured it.
The unintended consequences of this narrative are that when accosted by a person of color (which could very well happen) white women must simply allow it to happen or otherwise be deemed "racist."
I never bought this story for a second. And when I tried to point out how being told "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" sounds like a bona fide threat I don't care who says it...people actually defended that in order to uphold the Karen narrative.
In short, anyone who participates in this nonsense is a bona fide jerk.
I have heard it said by multiple wokeists of all colors from decades back that, since white men were so repulsive toward black women in days past, that they owe it to black men to let them abuse "their" women. We're game pieces on the board on which they play out their political grievances. We don't even EXIST as women to them, black or white.
But feminism no longer cares about questions like this. It's far more important for them to defend the rights of men in dresses to invade our safe spaces and destroy our sports.
You said it all. Despite all the wokeness, women are still taking it on the chin. We can't even be referred to as "mothers" for fear of offending men who think they are women.
That sounds like collective punishment. You do not get to hold one person accountable for another persons actions simply because they share a group identity. There’s a word for this, that word is racism.
Dog L, same problem here. When I pointed out his threatening statement to Amy, my friend blew me off and just kept on hating on Amy Cooper. I forwarded him this piece. :)
I saw a disturbing trend on social media of people saying to never call the police on a black man, or else you have blood on your hands. No matter what the reason was, even if your safety was in jeopardy. It was never justified enough to call the police. I couldn’t get over the absurdity. If someone is being robbed at gunpoint, you really expect them to not report it based off the color of the perpetrators skin?
There is an expression in the law that “bad facts make bad law.” My takeaway after hearing all of the additional detail is that both of these individuals are a little different. He has a sociopathic nature and she is a little off-kilter. That said, in the moment, in that area with no one else around, she had good reason to be afraid (independent of race). She tried to “level the playing field” by throwing in the race angle. She obviously thought that telling him she would play the race card would make him back off. When that didn’t work, she followed through, clearly still wanting to keep him at bay. When you feel you’re under physical threat, you’re going to play whatever card you have. I’m not going to judge her for that.
The incident was not worth a nation’s attention. It should have been over then and there. Instead, because of our current “over-correcting” culture, she now has to pay for it for many years. I’m embarrassed for our country.
She should never have been there with a dog (that area of the park is clearly posted “No Dogs” and on top of that dogs are required to be on leash throughout the park from 8am-9pm - she clearly chose to ignore both of those laws (clearly posted EVERYWHERE in park) because she clearly believes they don’t apply to her - I’m sorry - nothing to do with “woke-ness” here - she is a “Karen” and the fact she then called the police in spite of her being clearly at fault just exacerbated the situation - I don’t agree with his posting this on social media but I share his frustration (having been chased by dogs while running in park - having led bird walks through that area of the park only to have dog fights occur) -
Wait, so being physically threatened with a beating is the proper punishment for walking your dog someplace wrong? Can I knee you in the groin if you park over the line, or does it not count for me?
Hilarious- you obviously have never been threatened (or you are hyper-sensitive but that obviously is the case) - he took a cell phone video of Karen - you’ve obviously never been to NY - never been to Central Park - sit down son
Threatening to videotape someone is major. Look where it got her. And he had been doing the same thing to others. He's not the sort of person I'd want as a friend.
Clearly it was a threat of bodily harm. Try being a young woman in a wooded area in central park, for a minute. Such threats have no place, whether your dog is leashed or not.
I can guarantee you that you drive over the speed limit and use your phone in the car. Shall I follow you into a parking lot and make cryptic remarks about how you aren't going to like what I do? The guy tried to intimidate a woman alone in the woods. He is an a**.
Only use phone “hands free” but if you saw me driving over speed limit and said “slow down” I promise you I wouldn’t phone the police and claim you were threatened (I come from a family of NYCPD detectives - obviously I have more respect for our police force than either you or “Karen” who called them with a false report)
Hands free is hardly safer than holding a phone while driving. The problem is the bandwidth of the brain that is taken up by having a phone conversation. This has been studied by experts at the University of Utah, and probably elsewhere.
I agree that hands free isn’t great but I believe it isn't against the law in Massachusetts and it certainly is legal here in NY. Willfully ignoring both the leash law and taking your dog to an environmentally sensitive area where dogs are clearly prohibited is illegal and park goers get cited and fined on a regular basis for both. Wasting the police department’s time with a false report is what “Karen”
Is guilty of.
I don’t agree with his posting of the video nor do I feel that the punishment she has received fits her crimes but I do agree wholeheartedly that she is the perfect definition of a “Karen”
Hands free should be against the law. The University of Utah investigators who have studied this problem have found that distraction from the road can last for roughly half a minute ***following*** use a car's infotainment.
Hands free is legal in a lot of places but it shouldn't be--like Massachusetts. As for leash laws, most of them are like speed limits in that speed limits are very often too low, and so most people break them all the time, and there are plenty of leash laws that have no good raison d'etre. My dog runs all the time without a leash in a woodland near my house, along with most of the other dogs that frequent the place.
As for Amy Christian, she's probably not someone I'd want as a friend, but Christian Cooper much less so. He is a real jerk, bringing his treats to lure leash scoffaws' dogs, and telling them he's going to do something they won't like, and then filming them. In case you missed it, this is a thing with him.
While I'm not familiar with Central Park's ramble, I'm guessing its no more environmentally sensitive than the rest of Central Park.
- how people will play the best card they have at their disposal when in conflict or under pressure/threat.
- they are, in fact, both 'different', but what about C. Cooper do you think is sociopathic in nature? I think he is a bit persnickety and comes across as elitist, but I am wondering what it is you see that is sociopathic in nature.
Christian Cooper is most definitely a sociopath. Psychology Today tells readers how to spot a sociopath: 1, The driving force for sociopaths is to dominate others. They do this for the feeling of power and control. 2, Because sociopaths lack a conscience, they are willing to do anything to get what they want. 3, To assess whether someone might be a sociopath, use The WEB Method, which refers to: their words, your emotions, and their behavior.
I did not infer that she “leveled the playing field.” I inferred that she answered the 911 dispatcher’s questions with regard to a description of the suspect.
It is quite literally cancerous. And if you should have any doubt, I encourage you to take a gander at the comments section of any NYT story. Definitely no frolic in the psychic glade, but very eye-opening.
I had exactly the same reaction when I heard the exchange: "Wait a minute, hold on ... he just threatened her!" And what was she supposed to do, neglect to identify him well enough that the cops could find him? If a guy has red hair, is wearing a buffalo plaid shirt, or loafers, I'm going to point that out so he can be recognized -- and if he's black, I'll do the same.
The ugly fruit of intersectional feminism and wokeness: white women are the ultimate evil, and moreover they get to say whether someone is white or not. It's feminist to defend male predators in dresses who want access to our spas, but it's not feminist to defend a woman who attempted to accurately describe a very large man who was threatening her with physical violence. Un-fucking-believable.
She did not merely identify the guy to the police. Before she called 911, she told the guy, "I’m going to tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life." And then she stepped back and made the call.
My point is she expected Black men to be scared of the police. Maybe she expected Black men to be scared of accusations from a white woman like herself. That's why she told him what she was going to say to the police. She thought it would deter him.
I oppose Cancel Culture and I don't think she should've lost her job over this incident, but in this particular case, I think the article glosses over the racism a little too much.
She originally said "an African American man with a bike helmet It helps to identify the person who is threatening you if you want the police to have a clue who they are trying to find. She also had a history of being sexually assaulted and, regardless of how different this situation was, felt truly threatened and afraid. In this moment, I do not believe she was calculating enough to think saying the perpetrator was AA would make the police come faster or do harm to him, she was just scared sh***ess.
I totally agree that the identification of someone is a good reason to point out things like race or other identifiable features to the authorities, but we know from the video and from later transcripts that Amy Cooper says “I'm going to tell them there's an African American man threatening my life.” She says this with regard to her earlier threat to call the cops. This was before she had trouble being heard by the 911 dispatcher but after she was agitated and threatened by Christian Cooper. It’s hard for me not to see some implicit racism in threatening to call the cops on an “African American man.” Actually telling the police a description of your antagonist is a totally different thing.
Possibly, but why are we trying to figure out what people are thinking, when, clearly, we can't know what is going on inside of anyone else's head? I feel like I just have to take her word for it that she was scared. I think her punishment was excessive, driven by the generalized woeness of our culture. If it can happen to her, it can happen to you and me.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but at the same time, if this had been a white man instead of a black man, would she not have still threatened to call the police? It's almost a reflexive response when someone feels both vulnerable and threatened.
I don't completely disagree. It still seems purposeful to me that she told him *before* calling that she would say an African-American man was threatening her.
Yet, at the same time, we should be realistic. If a person legitimately thinks someone is threatening violence, and if the person being threatened is at a physical disadvantage, it's not completely unfathomable that the person might use almost any tool available to deter said aggressor, regardless of whether that tool is politically correct or not. So, while I do think it's possible that she was trying to elicit fear of police in him, I leave room also for the possibility that it was out of an authentic fear for her own and her dog's safety. Both things can be true.
It should be clear to all of us by now, but life is rarely a fairytale with perfectly packaged heroes and villains.
They touch on the racist angle in the podcast, which I listened to this morning. No conclusion is drawn and Amy is very careful to deny that she intended her threat to call the police on an "African American man" in any racial way, but I agree that it's pretty hard to hear those words before she calls 911 and not think she had at least some notion of what those words would mean to a black man. Her words do not pass basic scrutiny, and an apology would have been more sincere. Then again, she has a lawsuit going on so we shouldn't expect all of her feelings to ever come out publicly.
Great question. When asked where she would start the conversation with Chris, Amy replied that she would say that she was very scared. So far he has denied her a conversation. Amy's fear and the rather explicit verbal and implicit physical threats from Chris reveal the lie about how this never should have been a national story had it been covered honestly.
I mean seriously, how "nice" and "understanding" does a woman have to be to a man who just threatened her? Once again, the fact that he threatened her with physical violence is unremarked, and she's the villain for not BEING THREATENED correctly. Bite me.
She prolly needed to put her dog on a leash and tell 911 if her dog was black or brown. My point is she should have expected that some Black men to be scared of off leash dogs. ( She prolly is not aware of the days of the Civil Rights movement when dogs were unleashed on ... non-WASPS. Let's give her a little grace.). Maybe she expected Black men to have bad expectations of off-leash dogs unsupervised by white women like herself. That's why she used her privilege to call the police instead of LEASHING HER DOG. She thought her privilege would deter him. It's so sad she wasn't aware of how her privilege would be perceived. She will land on her feet. Too bad for the dog - he/she deserved a better owner.
Give me a break. Cooper associated her unleashed dog taking a stroll in the park with civil rights protests? He thought the puppy might be trained to attack black people(!)? Why would he tempt it to come to him with treats if that were the case?
This is what's known as motivated reasoning. You know what he did was wrong, but to admit it would cause you physic injury. Clownish
I think they have both overblown the situation. She should put her dog on a leash. He should have been a little less direct. Life goes on. How is this a national story?
I don't know that either of them was wrong. I live in the South and I know the history of dogs being used against people. Look it up. It kinda sucks. A treat in your pocket might be a reasonable defense. Jeez. Think about history and how different generations perceive reality.
Yeah, she is issued a threat of bodily harm, and you expect her to apologize? In a schoolyard this would be bullying. In a wooded area in inner city of the 2nd most crime infested place in the US and to a woman, this is a matter of urgent safety.
Dan, "I will do something to you that you won't like". How will you feel if you were in a wooded area of a crime infested city and I have power over you? Like if I carry a taser or some other tool.
Anyone who believes the media today is an imbecile. As a citizen, everyone must understand that it's imperative upon them to look for independent media reporting and to look at multiple sources. The sheep will always follow each other to the slaughter.
It comes down to whether you are an individual capable of independent thought or a mindless drone (NPC in meme slang) unquestioningly embracing what you are fed by the machine. There are far too many of the latter these days, worsened by the toxicity of (anti)social media along with the complete self-immolation of traditional journalism.
That definition is loose enough that it would deem writing of literally any kind to be part of "the media". If I scrawl something using the medium of sidewalk chalk, am I suddenly a journalist?
The real story here is not Mr Cooper but rather the media again proving itself to be both vile and untrustworthy. It is entertaining to still hear from those who seek to defend the NYT ( or WAPO) and insist that its writers, columnists and opinions are mainstream, middle of the road and unbiased.
The people who cling to the notion that they're objective newspapers unencumbered by ideological agenda are the same sort of people who're impressively qualified for twice-a-week therapy sessions.
I thought the media coverage of this incident was pretty bad at the time, and I said so in the comments on the first NYT article. This account makes it clear that I was right about that. Thanks Bari Weiss and Megan Phelps-Roper.
First, she as a woman alone, addressed with the words he offered, was perfectly correct in feeling threatened. Arguing that her response was disproportionate I think ignores things we can't know, such as tone, body language, and the presence or absence of others close by.
Second, retired and interested in today's issues, I don't have enough time in my day to read sources such as the NYT, WAPO, or their acolytes. It isn't purposeful to progress through bias, lies, and the vacuum of omissions. I think that they are the true creators of the Trump phenomenon in their unending, open contempt for everyone not genuflecting to their ever changing Truths.
I'm a far left Democrat. But I think for myself about the issues, and differ with my party on a few, notably immigration, because as an American, I care about American workers, and because the US population is about four times that which would be environmentally sustainable--so we should be reducing it, and not increasing it. And currently, immigration is the major source of population increase.
The NYT has been totally one-sided about immigration. I've written numerous letters to NYT ombuds, until they stopped employing them. Two of those I wrote to ultimately emailed me back to let me know they were thinking about writing about the issue. Both were gone within about six weeks of my hearing from them. IMO denial of immigration's downsides by much (not all!) of the left is no different from global warming denialism on the right.
Yes David! I am also left and I admit there are problems with mass immigration. It was never far-right to point this out until a few years ago. Cesar Chavez for example disagreed with it for great reason. I still support immigration, so long as it is stable like many Americans.
I’m an uptight conservative and I support immigration. I believe we could double the number of immigrants, nay triple, and it would be a net positive. I don’t believe we should have any sort of limitations on where immigrants come from or attempt to target any particular country, we should be color blind and first come first serve. I do not, cannot, will not support illegal immigration under any circumstance. I support the border wall and other policies aimed at slowing the rate of illegal crossings.
I want every single one of those people here, however. I want them in America, I just want it to be done legally.
So often I hear people describe republicans as “anti immigrant” as if opposing illegal immigration were some sort of smoke screen to mask our true xenophobia. Ridiculous!
Overpopulation is not a function of how many humans you can fit into a certain area. It's a function of how much area is necessary to support them sustainably--to feed them, house them, and support their lifestyle--again, sustainably. We're running on fossil fuels right now, which are unsustainable both because we are using them up, and because they are polluting, both in terms of carbon in the atmosphere, and in terms of pollutants that harm human health.
The point, doofus, is that overpopulation isn't just a matter of how many bodies fit in a space. There are countless ways in which people impact the planet and one another.
Impressed by your lack of focus on the topic. Is this dog an immigrant? Arguing that his response is disproportionate is based on tone and body language? Are you arguing that every black man should defer to the evaluation of a rich white woman? And the converse is not possible? Instead of apologizing a law-breaker doubled down, tripled down, and now is doing an acrobatic act of faithless contrition. And she gave up the dog. I pity the dog more than I pity her.
How many thousands of times have you exceeded the speed limit? Going around with your dog off leash is that sort of offense, unless you have a dog that bites or some such. I run with my border collie in a many acres woodland. Very few of the people who take their dogs there have them on leashes, despite the signs warning of major fines, and there is virtually no enforcement. But I, and others get often-nasty comments from busy bodies, although no-one has tried to video tape anyone there that I know of.
My comment about the NYT and immigration is meant to be a general criticism of the NYT, which is part of what this post on L'Affaire Coopers is about. In case you missed that. Go back and read the post carefully along with the links. Christian Cooper apparently enjoys acting like an asshole with people who don't have their dogs leashed.
I run with my dog off-leash on trails that are leash-free and trails that are not. I've encountered plenty of "Christians" and "Karens" who tell me to leash when necessary. And I do. Maybe I should call 911 next time but I probably won't.
It's not the same offense at all. Speeding rarely affects anyone else. Dog off leash often does. And dog owners are not sensitive enough to the effect of it. If a person has a dog off leash in front of their house and I have to cross the street to avoid the dog accosting me (whether friendly or hostile) then the dog owner has no idea of the negative impact. Or the dog unleashed craps on someone's lawn and the dog owner doesn't see it because they're gabbing with the neighbor. So everyone becomes and a-hole when they ask someone to leash their dog, but it's really the dog owner who is the a-hole.
Speeding rarely affects anyone else? You must be joking. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the top causes of mortality in the US, and speed is one of the stronger factors determining severity. Dog-attack fatalities don't even *approach* being in the same ballpark.
A dog crapping on someone's lawn is a separate issue. Most dogs don't accost people. So for the most part, it's no different. Heck, when I was a kid there weren't leash laws, and dogs were everywhere and not a problem.
Considering the outrageous victimization Amy Cooper is suffering, I wonder if Christian Cooper feels any sense of responsibility at all? Simple compassion? Pity? Anything?
It occurs to me that he could ameliorate a lot of her suffering, which she absolutely does not deserve. He obviously felt she was treated unfairly, because he refused to participate in her legal prosecution. Why then has he refused to meet with her? Why has he decided not to step forward and publicly call for a moratorium on her life sentence of abuse and exile? Is it because he believes her current situation is justified, and it makes him feel vindicated? Or is it that he knows that if he campaigned on her behalf he’d be thrown under the bus by the same mob that chanted for her execution?
Why did Christian Cooper decline to press charges against Amy Cooper? Christian Cooper didn't refuse to press charges out of the goodness of his heart. No. He knew if he cooperated with the police, his actions would have come under scrutiny by investigators, and he might be required to testify under oath. Then he would no longer be seen as a blameless "Marvel hero" fighting for equity but would be exposed as the calculating, self-serving sociopath he actually is. It sickens me that Joe Biden praised him.
The mainstream media is worse than useless these days. They publish articles that promote the woke narratives they're pushing, not caring whether their "facts" are true or false. But thanks to the efforts of Bari, Kmele, Megan, and Amy, the truth is finally coming to light. I'd like to thank you all for the valuable work you are doing.
The incident in Central Park was a winning lottery ticket for Christian Cooper. He played it for all it was worth and didn't care who got trashed in the process.
Let's try to get inside the mind of Christian Cooper. Even if he had a conscience, he's in this mess far too deeply to dial anything back. No. He can't risk a meeting with Amy Cooper. In the heat of the moment, who knows what he'd say, what he'd give away?
Christian Cooper must stick with his original story, which he parlayed into his very own Marvel Comic with him as the main character. Even the most powerful man in the visible universe, President Joe Biden, now considers him a hero. Just try and wrap your head around that.
So Christian Cooper can't admit even the slightest culpability. He's trapped inside a half-truth lie that went viral and got away from him. It showered him with success but also contains the seeds of his own destruction. Now he sweats bullets wondering how long his charade will last.
Just like Jussie Smollett needs to stick with his original story. Living in Chicagoland through that polar vortex, nothing he said was even plausible, much less believable.....but he got 90% of the media and even former Pres. Obama to empathize and villianize on his behalf. How do these people live with themselves?
Christian Cooper declined to cooperate with the investigators, so the charges against Amy Cooper were dropped. And the exact colloquial phrase "declined to press charges" has been stated many times in mainstream media articles about this incident such as the one linked below.
Dan is correct though. Only the DA has the authority to press charges. CC not cooperating is not dispositive. The DA could still charge, subpoena CC, and if he refused to testify he’d be found in contempt and possibly jailed (and or fined).
It goes without saying that DA's make the decision. But when a victim isn't eager to cooperate, strategic DA's pull back, because their task becomes that much harder and the odds of winning plunge. Don't waste time on a high profile case you're going to lose.
All quite true. I was only noting that colloquial phrase is inaccurate and that Dan was correct. I have seen cases where a DA has subpoened an uncooperative witness, who refused to testify, and the judge let them sit in the can a few days. (Usually it's a witness who's been granted immunity and doesn't want to give up a partner in crime... but now I'm drifting off topic).
Combine the outsourced judgement with the coming Social Credit System, and we have an outsized disaster on our hands.
I read on Twitter last night the very interesting writer Gad Saad wanted to follow Stephen Fry. However Stephen Fry's Twitter account had blocked Gad Saad's account from following. Some have suggested Fry is using a bot to block undesirables ... and Gad somehow fell into the undesirable category.
Kristin Tate has an essay in The Hill today about various corporate entities which are banning undesirables from using their platforms, and these are shopping ... thus banking apps. Tate goes on the make the most prescient statement I've seen in a while "The same companies that can track your activities and give you corporate rewards for compliant behavior could utilize their powers to block transactions, add surcharges or restrict your use of products." But I would like to focus on this snip "corporate rewards for compliant behavior."
Think about that for a bit: corporate rewards for compliant behavior. As judged by a piece of Artificial Intelligence.
Who are we to judge this woman? What one of us could survive the level of scrutiny that befell her? I have no idea what was in her mind, how can any of us know that (Kmele says the same)? Instead of common courtesy by Mr. Cooper, we see epic self-righteousness, as if to say "I'm going to catch those wicked people who let their dog off the leash and show them!!!" What's sad is how commonplace self-righteousness has become, especially on social media.
Eh, I judge her for how she mistreated her dog. She clearly wasn't paying attention because she was caught up in the emotion of the moment, and I don't think she intentionally wanted to harm her dog, but it was negligent and abusive.
Are you possibly confusing Megan Phelps-Roper (the author of this piece) with Bari Weiss (the host of this substack)? Just a nudge if so, not making a big deal.
I agree the NYT has really gone off the rails this last year. They're struggling to maintain the emotional excitement of the Trump times. Race and gender are their go to triggers. Nuance and subtlety don't ratchet up the adrenaline. However, we need mainstream news, even the emotional NYT, which I hope returns to real, high quality journalism soon.
This incident has been a good example of the erosion of civil discourse. She needed to get her dog on the leash and apologize for not following the rules. He needed to recognize her fear of him and try to ally those fears rather than exacerbate them. The real story is that this breach of good manners didn't happen and exploded into a national incident.
The NYT's has been "off the rails" for a long, long time. It's been a mouthpiece for the preferred 'reality' of the Liberal intelligentsia for decades and decades. Nothing matters or even exists unless they say it does and then, only how they say it does. Step outside of those parameters and you no longer matter or exist. It's like an alien, ancestral mother of cancel culture.
Race is the trigger. Gender identity, not actual sexual gender. A guy in a dress with a grudge is more "woman" than an actual woman threatened with male violence.
A big part of the danger to modern society today is that so many left-leaning types are deluding themselves into believing that their camp only went off the rails recently. This causes them to deny the true nature of the problem and to propose ineffective solutions.
Yes, there have always been some excessively dogmatic, intolerant folks on the left, however, I think we're seeing totally new levels of intolerance and an eagerness to attack and punish. I feel as if it's now a matter of honor amongst the true believers on both ends of the spectrum, to allow no compromise, consensus or even an attempt to productively communicate with the "enemy". The enemy is anyone who has a slightly different view from your own, unless it is more radical in your chosen direction.
I gotta admit, this piece did not make me more sympathetic to her. His "you're not gonna like it" comment is certainly uncalled for (mildly threatening) and he's obviously a jerk too who was looking to pick a(nother) fight with a dog person, but she still comes off overwrought, hysterical and, dare I say it, performative. There's just not enough here for a reasonable person to conclude that he was an actual threat. Maybe that's my "male privilege" talking, I don't know. But in her shoes I'd leash my dog and leave, not call the police in a panic. Frankly, she's still performing by pretending she's still facing daily threats while living in another country.
Of course the piece is damning to the NYT, WaPo, and other mainstream media. Many were more interested in the narrative than the nuance, but anybody who's surprised by that at this point should reach out to me about purchasing some swampland I've got going cheap.
Last thing I'll say is that, notwithstanding my lack of sympathy for her, I think we ought to be forgiving and forgetting this relatively trivial all around contretemp at this point. I can think she behaved badly that day, and even think she still sounds like somebody I wouldn't particularly want to associate with, without thinking this event should ruin her life.
While I appreciate your attempt at a measured and rational response, I think your perspective encapsulates Megan's point - our culture's lack of sympathy for those we disagree with or perceive of having done wrong is the core of the problem. If we could not find sympathy for someone like Megan and all the heinous things she did in the WBC, would she have been able to turn her life around and help raise awareness for how indoctrination subverts an individual's moral sensemaking? Perhaps it is time we stop vilifying the individuals for the ideas or actions we find reprehensible, and learn to foster the culture and attitudes we deem desirable.
The fact is, an attitude lacking sympathy or understanding for those we disagree with does not leave open an easy path to redemption or rehabilitation. I strongly believe we need to stop our moral grandstanding and judgment of individuals and start compassionately collaborating to build the values we want more of in the world.
When you say "she behaved badly that day, ... she still sounds like somebody I wouldn't particularly want to associate with" it neglects the plasticity of people and their ability to change and grow - if Megan hasn't proved that point then I don't know who will. We need to stop treating people as fixed embodiments of good and evil and recognize them as constantly evolving conduits of ideas, attitudes, and beliefs.
If you haven’t heard the podcast, please note that some of my comments here are based on that.
Amy Cooper is a survivor of sexual assault. So am I — twice in fact — that occurred 50 years ago. To this day, I’m subject to a sudden sense of vulnerability and fear that comes over me in circumstances that trigger feelings or memories of those assaults. These are situations that may appear benign to others. But what Amy Cooper confronted in the park that day was not benign; it carried threat and danger.
Even without PTSD, a woman being confronted by a large man in a secluded area of a park is going to experience fear, anxiety, concern. A sense of heightened alertness and trepidation kicks in, even if one has never been assaulted. This is a universal experience for women. It just is. It must be factored into Amy Cooper’s emotional state in that moment. Perhaps if she were a man, and less frightened of Christian Cooper, she would have done what the Black male dog walker did when confronted with Christian Cooper’s tactics, and knocked him to the ground.
Unless she wears a tattoo on her head, I am a survivor of sexual assault, no one knows that. Bringing that into the conversation after the fact strains for a rationale of her behavior. Her dog was off the leash in contravention of the rules. If she had followed the leash laws, she would still have a job, she wouldn’t have been videoed melting down and nothing - nothing would have happened.
You’re correct — she shouldn’t have had her dog off-leash in that part of the park. As a matter of fact, I’m a birder who got my start at the Ramble, and I detest the cluelessness of dog owners in that space, even though I love dogs in most other spaces.
At the same time, the long-term effects of trauma are not uniform, and sometimes they never fully heal despite our best efforts. Amy Cooper’s emotional response was exacerbated by her history. Because her emotional response has been the subject of much unfair scrutiny and misinterpretation, IMO it’s important to provide this context about her.
And let me add that I find the idea that of bike helmet as a weapon a little odd. Maybe this was a steel bike helmet with blades and spikes, I don't know. Most of them are plastic and styrofoam though. In the law (and yes, I'm a lawyer) we often distinguish between objective and subjective. From the story I heard, I continue to think her panic was objectively unreasonable, however subjectively real it may have been.
Well, for what it's worth, I did acknowledge that the fact that I'm a man may be part of why I perceive this situation differently. But regardless of sex, I'm not sure knocking someone to the ground for giving a dog a treat is justified.
In theory, I agree with you about the justification for knocking somebody to the ground. But in fact, since I wasn’t there, I don’t know why that occurred or what the parties were thinking or saying that might have provoked a physical response.
In any case, I’m not defending that man’s behavior. I am pointing out that people’s response to threat varies with their life experience and, in this case, differences between the sexes.
I'm not sure I follow you. First of all, I wasn't talking about Megan at all. I don't know what she has to do with anything I said. I was talking about Amy Cooper, the subject of the story. And I didn't declare her "evil" or "irredeemable." I specifically said her offense was relatively trivial and that we should forgive and forget. Should I not form an opinion at all about how reasonable her behavior was on the day in question? If so, I'm not sure why I'm here.
Definitely a dude thing....you have never had to worry about being attacked or assaulted simply because, as a female, one is perceived as weaker or an easy target.
And as a woman, you have no idea how much men have to walk on eggshells around you. In the world of cancel culture, we have more legitimate reason to fear than you do.
No, you don't. Women are the ones that have to walk on egg shells around men and society at large. We can't even talk about male violence against men without men getting offended and men too-ing all the time. Women are also more harshly judged by society. The Karen memes are proof of that. If Christian Cooper was a white man, I have no doubt that the reaction from the public would be the same. And I also think that if the genders were reversed, the woman would still get the hate.
Nope, yours is not a gendered perspective. I’m a 5’3” woman and I found nothing threatening in that scenario. It was broad daylight, and he was calm and rational, wasn’t moving quickly, and she had every opportunity to leash her dog and walk away. She had easy egress, which always lowers my concern factor when encountering a strange man in an isolated situation. If I heard any kind of “threat” in the dog biscuit thing, it would have been concern that it would make my dog sick, but his further conversation dispelled that notion. He sounded like a guy who was sick of being harassed by other people’s dogs and trying to make a point.
I’ve got more empathy for him, irrespective of race, because I’ve been terrified of dogs since I was chased and bitten at age 5. It took me almost 20 years to overcome that fear and experience the pleasure of having a dog of my own, but I still tense up around loose dogs. People who let their dogs off leash in shared spaces utterly spoil my ability to enjoy that space.
However, the main point of the article is well taken. I don’t trust the media, so I hunted up the full video for myself as soon as the story broke. I did form my opinion while in full possession of all the available information. The presentation in the media was so curated to remove or minimize anything that didn’t fit the race narrative that lots of people made their decisions based on that alone. Would a more truthful representation have helped her, prevented the societal pile-on? I don’t know. But the way they did handle it surely contributed to the harassment, which is apparently still ongoing.
The media is constantly feeding the flames of outrage, especially when the target is small and defenseless. I don’t see them going to bat all that much for the uyghurs experiencing genocide at the hands of the CCP, which is rather more damaging to the fabric of society than the real or imagined sins of the Central Park Karen, but also requires moral courage and a longer attention span. Easier to go after an unsympathetic white woman and get the immediate reward of seeing someone PAY for their sins right now. Even if the “sins” are misunderstood or blown out of proportion.
There is no mercy when the twitter mob comes for you. No due process, no self defense. That begs the question for me - is there a mechanism for forgiveness in this brave new world? When is she deemed to have suffered enough? And who decides?
Did she have a leash for the dog? People who regularly let their dogs run off-leash in a park often don't bother to carry the leash with them. Some do, just in case there is an issue, but some don't.
I believe they said in the podcast that she ultimately leashed the dog and he thanked her for doing so. That just seems to me more like how this interaction should have gone from the beginning. FWIW, I'm one of those crazy dog people who thinks his dogs are his children, so this is not an anti-dog thing from me. I adore my two mutts - but understand the need to be responsible for them.
I've been a PI for 40 years. I understand, on a level above almost all, that as Oscar Wilde said, "The truth is never pure and rarely simple." I see news stories w/ a professionally critical eye. I have worked cases that were reported on in print and tv that had BASIC facts wrong. This is routine. The errors were usually a result of laziness, incompetence, stupidity. But, some were agenda driven. I'm mostly retired but work a case on occasion. A couple years back I worked a case defending a priest charged w/ felony molestation. I think you can visualize the reporting on this case. Well, the trial was a week long and the jury deliberated just a couple hours, acquitting the priest of all charges. As one juror said, they didn't understand why charges were even brought. Reporting has always been flawed. It has gotten exponentially worse in the past decade or so. If you want good reporting, be critical and selective. All reading this have subscribed to Bari Weis. She, Greenwald, Taibbi and a few others are intellectually honest reporters. They are on the endangered species list.
I used to work for a DA. One particular case I'd sneak down to the courtroom to watch everyday. I sat in the gallery and a local reporter, who knew me from a different case I had worked, sat by me so she could ask me what had just happened, why, and what importance the event(s) had.
Inevitably, the next day, the article that got published not only missed the key events but the events reported were incorrect. This, even though I'd explained to her what had happened the previous day in court.
To your last point NS, indeed. Weis, Taibbi, and Greenwald are not members of my general political tribe. But I most definitely claim them in my other tribe that aspires to learn objective truths before forming opinions in my much more subjective tribe. They are revolutionaries bringing back my faith that journalists can conduct themselves with integrity and a passion to root out the truth.
That dispassionate, objective, fact-based journalism is considered revolutionary today says all you need to know about how far we as a society have fallen down the rabbit hole.
yup
Xi, Great comment. I began my investigator career working for the prosecuting attorney's office in KC back in the 70's. It was rewarding work but I wanted to make money and went into private practice. Most of my private investigative work the past 40 years has been civil, working mostly for defendants, but also for plaintiff's. Like you, I'm not a liberal, although I was in my youth. I think of what Churchill said, "Anyone who is not liberal when young doesn't have a heart. Anyone not conservative when older doesn't have a brain." What Weis, Taibbi and Greenwald represent is, as I said, intellectual honesty. They are vilified by their former "friends" for having the temerity to be straight reporters. I have long thought the greatest liberation one can achieve is not giving a rat's ass what other people think of you. There are people for whom I do care what they think of me. They all fit at my dining room table.
I'm no private investigator, but I knew enough to read this Central Park birding guy's Twitter feed back when this happened, so the actual circumstances were pretty easy to deduce.
I'm not sure how Phelps-Roper gets away with saying "New evidence comes to light" and it's mainly the dude's Twitter feed from the time of the event.
People get in pissing matches like this all of the time, this one made them both look ugly but she suffered far too much due to the unforgiving power of the social media narrative these days. The real story is that social media is driving society to lack considered collective rationality in favor of reactive emotionalism. The Histrionic States of America.
I remember reading that he had dog treats, which seemed odd to me. Kind of like an dogcatcher trying to lure a dog to take to a shelter.
He basically self-appointed to police the breaking of the dog leashing rules in the ramble because he is a birdwatcher and it annoys him that people break the rules a lot. Probably partly because he's annoyed that people flout the rules, and partly because he's trying to watch the birds and the dogs scare them off.
The Birds in my backyard could care less what my dog is doing.
That makes sense. I'm not a birdwatcher and it annoys the hell out of me when selfish inconsiderate dog owners allow their dogs to run wild in places where that is expressly forbidden. I love dogs but hell, no.
No. If he's always afraid of getting attacked or charged by unleashed dogs then dog treats would be the best and most effective defense.
You don't seem to know much about dogs. A treat as "the best and most effective defense"? It sounds to me like you're just trying to rationalize his behavior.
That makes sense.
I have seen a number of news reports/articles about matters of which I was deeply familiar. In every case the reporters either completely missed the point or deliberately obscured it.
The unintended consequences of this narrative are that when accosted by a person of color (which could very well happen) white women must simply allow it to happen or otherwise be deemed "racist."
I never bought this story for a second. And when I tried to point out how being told "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going to like it" sounds like a bona fide threat I don't care who says it...people actually defended that in order to uphold the Karen narrative.
In short, anyone who participates in this nonsense is a bona fide jerk.
I have heard it said by multiple wokeists of all colors from decades back that, since white men were so repulsive toward black women in days past, that they owe it to black men to let them abuse "their" women. We're game pieces on the board on which they play out their political grievances. We don't even EXIST as women to them, black or white.
But feminism no longer cares about questions like this. It's far more important for them to defend the rights of men in dresses to invade our safe spaces and destroy our sports.
You said it all. Despite all the wokeness, women are still taking it on the chin. We can't even be referred to as "mothers" for fear of offending men who think they are women.
That sounds like collective punishment. You do not get to hold one person accountable for another persons actions simply because they share a group identity. There’s a word for this, that word is racism.
Dog L, same problem here. When I pointed out his threatening statement to Amy, my friend blew me off and just kept on hating on Amy Cooper. I forwarded him this piece. :)
I saw a disturbing trend on social media of people saying to never call the police on a black man, or else you have blood on your hands. No matter what the reason was, even if your safety was in jeopardy. It was never justified enough to call the police. I couldn’t get over the absurdity. If someone is being robbed at gunpoint, you really expect them to not report it based off the color of the perpetrators skin?
"unintended"?
There is an expression in the law that “bad facts make bad law.” My takeaway after hearing all of the additional detail is that both of these individuals are a little different. He has a sociopathic nature and she is a little off-kilter. That said, in the moment, in that area with no one else around, she had good reason to be afraid (independent of race). She tried to “level the playing field” by throwing in the race angle. She obviously thought that telling him she would play the race card would make him back off. When that didn’t work, she followed through, clearly still wanting to keep him at bay. When you feel you’re under physical threat, you’re going to play whatever card you have. I’m not going to judge her for that.
The incident was not worth a nation’s attention. It should have been over then and there. Instead, because of our current “over-correcting” culture, she now has to pay for it for many years. I’m embarrassed for our country.
She should never have been there with a dog (that area of the park is clearly posted “No Dogs” and on top of that dogs are required to be on leash throughout the park from 8am-9pm - she clearly chose to ignore both of those laws (clearly posted EVERYWHERE in park) because she clearly believes they don’t apply to her - I’m sorry - nothing to do with “woke-ness” here - she is a “Karen” and the fact she then called the police in spite of her being clearly at fault just exacerbated the situation - I don’t agree with his posting this on social media but I share his frustration (having been chased by dogs while running in park - having led bird walks through that area of the park only to have dog fights occur) -
Wait, so being physically threatened with a beating is the proper punishment for walking your dog someplace wrong? Can I knee you in the groin if you park over the line, or does it not count for me?
Hilarious- you obviously have never been threatened (or you are hyper-sensitive but that obviously is the case) - he took a cell phone video of Karen - you’ve obviously never been to NY - never been to Central Park - sit down son
Threatening to videotape someone is major. Look where it got her. And he had been doing the same thing to others. He's not the sort of person I'd want as a friend.
Did you just use the phrase, “Karen” unironically?
Clearly it was a threat of bodily harm. Try being a young woman in a wooded area in central park, for a minute. Such threats have no place, whether your dog is leashed or not.
It strikes me as obscenely overconfident to be this sure of your interpretation of events. None of us was there.
I can guarantee you that you drive over the speed limit and use your phone in the car. Shall I follow you into a parking lot and make cryptic remarks about how you aren't going to like what I do? The guy tried to intimidate a woman alone in the woods. He is an a**.
Only use phone “hands free” but if you saw me driving over speed limit and said “slow down” I promise you I wouldn’t phone the police and claim you were threatened (I come from a family of NYCPD detectives - obviously I have more respect for our police force than either you or “Karen” who called them with a false report)
"I will do something to you that you don't like" is not exactly "slow down". If you don't know the difference, you should talk to your relatives.
Hands free is hardly safer than holding a phone while driving. The problem is the bandwidth of the brain that is taken up by having a phone conversation. This has been studied by experts at the University of Utah, and probably elsewhere.
I agree that hands free isn’t great but I believe it isn't against the law in Massachusetts and it certainly is legal here in NY. Willfully ignoring both the leash law and taking your dog to an environmentally sensitive area where dogs are clearly prohibited is illegal and park goers get cited and fined on a regular basis for both. Wasting the police department’s time with a false report is what “Karen”
Is guilty of.
I don’t agree with his posting of the video nor do I feel that the punishment she has received fits her crimes but I do agree wholeheartedly that she is the perfect definition of a “Karen”
Hands free should be against the law. The University of Utah investigators who have studied this problem have found that distraction from the road can last for roughly half a minute ***following*** use a car's infotainment.
Hands free is legal in a lot of places but it shouldn't be--like Massachusetts. As for leash laws, most of them are like speed limits in that speed limits are very often too low, and so most people break them all the time, and there are plenty of leash laws that have no good raison d'etre. My dog runs all the time without a leash in a woodland near my house, along with most of the other dogs that frequent the place.
As for Amy Christian, she's probably not someone I'd want as a friend, but Christian Cooper much less so. He is a real jerk, bringing his treats to lure leash scoffaws' dogs, and telling them he's going to do something they won't like, and then filming them. In case you missed it, this is a thing with him.
While I'm not familiar with Central Park's ramble, I'm guessing its no more environmentally sensitive than the rest of Central Park.
What is it like to enjoy hating people simply because you were told to hate them?
JM, very good comment especially:
- how people will play the best card they have at their disposal when in conflict or under pressure/threat.
- they are, in fact, both 'different', but what about C. Cooper do you think is sociopathic in nature? I think he is a bit persnickety and comes across as elitist, but I am wondering what it is you see that is sociopathic in nature.
Maybe sociopathic is not quite the right word. It was the calculated way he brought treats, filmed her, etc. that was creepy to me.
yes! profoundly calculated and yes, creepy. You are spot on. Quite insightful on your part JM---quite insightful
Christian Cooper is most definitely a sociopath. Psychology Today tells readers how to spot a sociopath: 1, The driving force for sociopaths is to dominate others. They do this for the feeling of power and control. 2, Because sociopaths lack a conscience, they are willing to do anything to get what they want. 3, To assess whether someone might be a sociopath, use The WEB Method, which refers to: their words, your emotions, and their behavior.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/5-types-people-who-can-ruin-your-life/201803/how-spot-sociopath-in-3-steps
Read the article linked, and you'll see he's a textbook case.
That he brought dog treats (and owns no dog) means he went to the park expecting to encounter a dog.
The threat, “you aren’t going to like…” implies he intends to poison/kill the dog and render the woman vulnerable.
That’s creepy at a minimum and rapidly approaching sociopathic.
He could have easily said, “lady, put your dog on a leash and gtfo or I’ll call the cops”
He chose to threaten her dog and her.
excellent point demonhunter!
I did not infer that she “leveled the playing field.” I inferred that she answered the 911 dispatcher’s questions with regard to a description of the suspect.
Well said!
Stop reading the Times. It’s propaganda. It is neither news nor fit to print.
Indeed. American Pravda.
It is quite literally cancerous. And if you should have any doubt, I encourage you to take a gander at the comments section of any NYT story. Definitely no frolic in the psychic glade, but very eye-opening.
I had exactly the same reaction when I heard the exchange: "Wait a minute, hold on ... he just threatened her!" And what was she supposed to do, neglect to identify him well enough that the cops could find him? If a guy has red hair, is wearing a buffalo plaid shirt, or loafers, I'm going to point that out so he can be recognized -- and if he's black, I'll do the same.
The ugly fruit of intersectional feminism and wokeness: white women are the ultimate evil, and moreover they get to say whether someone is white or not. It's feminist to defend male predators in dresses who want access to our spas, but it's not feminist to defend a woman who attempted to accurately describe a very large man who was threatening her with physical violence. Un-fucking-believable.
She did not merely identify the guy to the police. Before she called 911, she told the guy, "I’m going to tell them there’s an African American man threatening my life." And then she stepped back and made the call.
My point is she expected Black men to be scared of the police. Maybe she expected Black men to be scared of accusations from a white woman like herself. That's why she told him what she was going to say to the police. She thought it would deter him.
I oppose Cancel Culture and I don't think she should've lost her job over this incident, but in this particular case, I think the article glosses over the racism a little too much.
She originally said "an African American man with a bike helmet It helps to identify the person who is threatening you if you want the police to have a clue who they are trying to find. She also had a history of being sexually assaulted and, regardless of how different this situation was, felt truly threatened and afraid. In this moment, I do not believe she was calculating enough to think saying the perpetrator was AA would make the police come faster or do harm to him, she was just scared sh***ess.
I totally agree that the identification of someone is a good reason to point out things like race or other identifiable features to the authorities, but we know from the video and from later transcripts that Amy Cooper says “I'm going to tell them there's an African American man threatening my life.” She says this with regard to her earlier threat to call the cops. This was before she had trouble being heard by the 911 dispatcher but after she was agitated and threatened by Christian Cooper. It’s hard for me not to see some implicit racism in threatening to call the cops on an “African American man.” Actually telling the police a description of your antagonist is a totally different thing.
Possibly, but why are we trying to figure out what people are thinking, when, clearly, we can't know what is going on inside of anyone else's head? I feel like I just have to take her word for it that she was scared. I think her punishment was excessive, driven by the generalized woeness of our culture. If it can happen to her, it can happen to you and me.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but at the same time, if this had been a white man instead of a black man, would she not have still threatened to call the police? It's almost a reflexive response when someone feels both vulnerable and threatened.
I don't completely disagree. It still seems purposeful to me that she told him *before* calling that she would say an African-American man was threatening her.
Yet, at the same time, we should be realistic. If a person legitimately thinks someone is threatening violence, and if the person being threatened is at a physical disadvantage, it's not completely unfathomable that the person might use almost any tool available to deter said aggressor, regardless of whether that tool is politically correct or not. So, while I do think it's possible that she was trying to elicit fear of police in him, I leave room also for the possibility that it was out of an authentic fear for her own and her dog's safety. Both things can be true.
It should be clear to all of us by now, but life is rarely a fairytale with perfectly packaged heroes and villains.
They touch on the racist angle in the podcast, which I listened to this morning. No conclusion is drawn and Amy is very careful to deny that she intended her threat to call the police on an "African American man" in any racial way, but I agree that it's pretty hard to hear those words before she calls 911 and not think she had at least some notion of what those words would mean to a black man. Her words do not pass basic scrutiny, and an apology would have been more sincere. Then again, she has a lawsuit going on so we shouldn't expect all of her feelings to ever come out publicly.
Did Christopher Cooper consider what his words, coming as they were from a man to a woman who is alone in a park, might mean to her?
Great question. When asked where she would start the conversation with Chris, Amy replied that she would say that she was very scared. So far he has denied her a conversation. Amy's fear and the rather explicit verbal and implicit physical threats from Chris reveal the lie about how this never should have been a national story had it been covered honestly.
The Spectator, which apparently sponsors Bari Weiss's podcast now, had a great article on this last year. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/central-park-unstoppable-karen-meets-immovable-karen/
I mean seriously, how "nice" and "understanding" does a woman have to be to a man who just threatened her? Once again, the fact that he threatened her with physical violence is unremarked, and she's the villain for not BEING THREATENED correctly. Bite me.
"what these words would mean to a very large man who just threatened her." FTFY.
She prolly needed to put her dog on a leash and tell 911 if her dog was black or brown. My point is she should have expected that some Black men to be scared of off leash dogs. ( She prolly is not aware of the days of the Civil Rights movement when dogs were unleashed on ... non-WASPS. Let's give her a little grace.). Maybe she expected Black men to have bad expectations of off-leash dogs unsupervised by white women like herself. That's why she used her privilege to call the police instead of LEASHING HER DOG. She thought her privilege would deter him. It's so sad she wasn't aware of how her privilege would be perceived. She will land on her feet. Too bad for the dog - he/she deserved a better owner.
Give me a break. Cooper associated her unleashed dog taking a stroll in the park with civil rights protests? He thought the puppy might be trained to attack black people(!)? Why would he tempt it to come to him with treats if that were the case?
This is what's known as motivated reasoning. You know what he did was wrong, but to admit it would cause you physic injury. Clownish
I think they have both overblown the situation. She should put her dog on a leash. He should have been a little less direct. Life goes on. How is this a national story?
I don't know that either of them was wrong. I live in the South and I know the history of dogs being used against people. Look it up. It kinda sucks. A treat in your pocket might be a reasonable defense. Jeez. Think about history and how different generations perceive reality.
I suppose you think it's perfectly appropriate to assume African Americans in 2020 to instinctively fear fire hoses and flagpoles as well. Get a grip.
I have a grip. And a leash for my dog. My half sister's father is African American. He is disturbed by dogs and I respect his feelings. :)
Yeah, she is issued a threat of bodily harm, and you expect her to apologize? In a schoolyard this would be bullying. In a wooded area in inner city of the 2nd most crime infested place in the US and to a woman, this is a matter of urgent safety.
No matter who is right or who is wrong, this woman suffered too much of her alleged offense. It is unacceptable in a democratic society.
We’ve become the Soviet Union. The New York Times is Pravda.
The truth hurts. Cry more.
You're so right.
Dan, "I will do something to you that you won't like". How will you feel if you were in a wooded area of a crime infested city and I have power over you? Like if I carry a taser or some other tool.
Wow -- you are a candidate to be booted. Control yourself.
Honestly, I hope she skewers her former employer in this lawsuit!
I hope so, too.
Anyone who believes the media today is an imbecile. As a citizen, everyone must understand that it's imperative upon them to look for independent media reporting and to look at multiple sources. The sheep will always follow each other to the slaughter.
It comes down to whether you are an individual capable of independent thought or a mindless drone (NPC in meme slang) unquestioningly embracing what you are fed by the machine. There are far too many of the latter these days, worsened by the toxicity of (anti)social media along with the complete self-immolation of traditional journalism.
Boring, pedantic.
That definition is loose enough that it would deem writing of literally any kind to be part of "the media". If I scrawl something using the medium of sidewalk chalk, am I suddenly a journalist?
The real story here is not Mr Cooper but rather the media again proving itself to be both vile and untrustworthy. It is entertaining to still hear from those who seek to defend the NYT ( or WAPO) and insist that its writers, columnists and opinions are mainstream, middle of the road and unbiased.
The people who cling to the notion that they're objective newspapers unencumbered by ideological agenda are the same sort of people who're impressively qualified for twice-a-week therapy sessions.
I thought the media coverage of this incident was pretty bad at the time, and I said so in the comments on the first NYT article. This account makes it clear that I was right about that. Thanks Bari Weiss and Megan Phelps-Roper.
I have two concerns.
First, she as a woman alone, addressed with the words he offered, was perfectly correct in feeling threatened. Arguing that her response was disproportionate I think ignores things we can't know, such as tone, body language, and the presence or absence of others close by.
Second, retired and interested in today's issues, I don't have enough time in my day to read sources such as the NYT, WAPO, or their acolytes. It isn't purposeful to progress through bias, lies, and the vacuum of omissions. I think that they are the true creators of the Trump phenomenon in their unending, open contempt for everyone not genuflecting to their ever changing Truths.
I'm a far left Democrat. But I think for myself about the issues, and differ with my party on a few, notably immigration, because as an American, I care about American workers, and because the US population is about four times that which would be environmentally sustainable--so we should be reducing it, and not increasing it. And currently, immigration is the major source of population increase.
The NYT has been totally one-sided about immigration. I've written numerous letters to NYT ombuds, until they stopped employing them. Two of those I wrote to ultimately emailed me back to let me know they were thinking about writing about the issue. Both were gone within about six weeks of my hearing from them. IMO denial of immigration's downsides by much (not all!) of the left is no different from global warming denialism on the right.
Yes David! I am also left and I admit there are problems with mass immigration. It was never far-right to point this out until a few years ago. Cesar Chavez for example disagreed with it for great reason. I still support immigration, so long as it is stable like many Americans.
I’m an uptight conservative and I support immigration. I believe we could double the number of immigrants, nay triple, and it would be a net positive. I don’t believe we should have any sort of limitations on where immigrants come from or attempt to target any particular country, we should be color blind and first come first serve. I do not, cannot, will not support illegal immigration under any circumstance. I support the border wall and other policies aimed at slowing the rate of illegal crossings.
I want every single one of those people here, however. I want them in America, I just want it to be done legally.
So often I hear people describe republicans as “anti immigrant” as if opposing illegal immigration were some sort of smoke screen to mask our true xenophobia. Ridiculous!
Overpopulation is not a function of how many humans you can fit into a certain area. It's a function of how much area is necessary to support them sustainably--to feed them, house them, and support their lifestyle--again, sustainably. We're running on fossil fuels right now, which are unsustainable both because we are using them up, and because they are polluting, both in terms of carbon in the atmosphere, and in terms of pollutants that harm human health.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
This is weak Malthusian silliness.
Your retort is weak and ignorant.
Of course. Your life is insulting people you do know nothing of in comments sections of blogs. Plus, it's way off topic.
The point, doofus, is that overpopulation isn't just a matter of how many bodies fit in a space. There are countless ways in which people impact the planet and one another.
get some education
Impressed by your lack of focus on the topic. Is this dog an immigrant? Arguing that his response is disproportionate is based on tone and body language? Are you arguing that every black man should defer to the evaluation of a rich white woman? And the converse is not possible? Instead of apologizing a law-breaker doubled down, tripled down, and now is doing an acrobatic act of faithless contrition. And she gave up the dog. I pity the dog more than I pity her.
How many thousands of times have you exceeded the speed limit? Going around with your dog off leash is that sort of offense, unless you have a dog that bites or some such. I run with my border collie in a many acres woodland. Very few of the people who take their dogs there have them on leashes, despite the signs warning of major fines, and there is virtually no enforcement. But I, and others get often-nasty comments from busy bodies, although no-one has tried to video tape anyone there that I know of.
My comment about the NYT and immigration is meant to be a general criticism of the NYT, which is part of what this post on L'Affaire Coopers is about. In case you missed that. Go back and read the post carefully along with the links. Christian Cooper apparently enjoys acting like an asshole with people who don't have their dogs leashed.
I run with my dog off-leash on trails that are leash-free and trails that are not. I've encountered plenty of "Christians" and "Karens" who tell me to leash when necessary. And I do. Maybe I should call 911 next time but I probably won't.
It's not the same offense at all. Speeding rarely affects anyone else. Dog off leash often does. And dog owners are not sensitive enough to the effect of it. If a person has a dog off leash in front of their house and I have to cross the street to avoid the dog accosting me (whether friendly or hostile) then the dog owner has no idea of the negative impact. Or the dog unleashed craps on someone's lawn and the dog owner doesn't see it because they're gabbing with the neighbor. So everyone becomes and a-hole when they ask someone to leash their dog, but it's really the dog owner who is the a-hole.
"Speeding rarely affects anyone else." Hands down, the dumbest thing I have read today.
Speeding rarely affects anyone else? You must be joking. Motor vehicle accidents are one of the top causes of mortality in the US, and speed is one of the stronger factors determining severity. Dog-attack fatalities don't even *approach* being in the same ballpark.
A dog crapping on someone's lawn is a separate issue. Most dogs don't accost people. So for the most part, it's no different. Heck, when I was a kid there weren't leash laws, and dogs were everywhere and not a problem.
Considering the outrageous victimization Amy Cooper is suffering, I wonder if Christian Cooper feels any sense of responsibility at all? Simple compassion? Pity? Anything?
It occurs to me that he could ameliorate a lot of her suffering, which she absolutely does not deserve. He obviously felt she was treated unfairly, because he refused to participate in her legal prosecution. Why then has he refused to meet with her? Why has he decided not to step forward and publicly call for a moratorium on her life sentence of abuse and exile? Is it because he believes her current situation is justified, and it makes him feel vindicated? Or is it that he knows that if he campaigned on her behalf he’d be thrown under the bus by the same mob that chanted for her execution?
Why did Christian Cooper decline to press charges against Amy Cooper? Christian Cooper didn't refuse to press charges out of the goodness of his heart. No. He knew if he cooperated with the police, his actions would have come under scrutiny by investigators, and he might be required to testify under oath. Then he would no longer be seen as a blameless "Marvel hero" fighting for equity but would be exposed as the calculating, self-serving sociopath he actually is. It sickens me that Joe Biden praised him.
The mainstream media is worse than useless these days. They publish articles that promote the woke narratives they're pushing, not caring whether their "facts" are true or false. But thanks to the efforts of Bari, Kmele, Megan, and Amy, the truth is finally coming to light. I'd like to thank you all for the valuable work you are doing.
You are absolutely right.
The incident in Central Park was a winning lottery ticket for Christian Cooper. He played it for all it was worth and didn't care who got trashed in the process.
Sadly, I have to agree that it sure looks that way. I want to give him more credit than he deserves.
Let's try to get inside the mind of Christian Cooper. Even if he had a conscience, he's in this mess far too deeply to dial anything back. No. He can't risk a meeting with Amy Cooper. In the heat of the moment, who knows what he'd say, what he'd give away?
Christian Cooper must stick with his original story, which he parlayed into his very own Marvel Comic with him as the main character. Even the most powerful man in the visible universe, President Joe Biden, now considers him a hero. Just try and wrap your head around that.
So Christian Cooper can't admit even the slightest culpability. He's trapped inside a half-truth lie that went viral and got away from him. It showered him with success but also contains the seeds of his own destruction. Now he sweats bullets wondering how long his charade will last.
Just like Jussie Smollett needs to stick with his original story. Living in Chicagoland through that polar vortex, nothing he said was even plausible, much less believable.....but he got 90% of the media and even former Pres. Obama to empathize and villianize on his behalf. How do these people live with themselves?
excellent comment!
Christian Cooper declined to cooperate with the investigators, so the charges against Amy Cooper were dropped. And the exact colloquial phrase "declined to press charges" has been stated many times in mainstream media articles about this incident such as the one linked below.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amy-central-park-karen-cooper-is-suing-her-former-employer-for-discriminating-against-her-as-a-white-woman/ar-AAKrTs7
Dan is correct though. Only the DA has the authority to press charges. CC not cooperating is not dispositive. The DA could still charge, subpoena CC, and if he refused to testify he’d be found in contempt and possibly jailed (and or fined).
It goes without saying that DA's make the decision. But when a victim isn't eager to cooperate, strategic DA's pull back, because their task becomes that much harder and the odds of winning plunge. Don't waste time on a high profile case you're going to lose.
All quite true. I was only noting that colloquial phrase is inaccurate and that Dan was correct. I have seen cases where a DA has subpoened an uncooperative witness, who refused to testify, and the judge let them sit in the can a few days. (Usually it's a witness who's been granted immunity and doesn't want to give up a partner in crime... but now I'm drifting off topic).
Combine the outsourced judgement with the coming Social Credit System, and we have an outsized disaster on our hands.
I read on Twitter last night the very interesting writer Gad Saad wanted to follow Stephen Fry. However Stephen Fry's Twitter account had blocked Gad Saad's account from following. Some have suggested Fry is using a bot to block undesirables ... and Gad somehow fell into the undesirable category.
Kristin Tate has an essay in The Hill today about various corporate entities which are banning undesirables from using their platforms, and these are shopping ... thus banking apps. Tate goes on the make the most prescient statement I've seen in a while "The same companies that can track your activities and give you corporate rewards for compliant behavior could utilize their powers to block transactions, add surcharges or restrict your use of products." But I would like to focus on this snip "corporate rewards for compliant behavior."
Think about that for a bit: corporate rewards for compliant behavior. As judged by a piece of Artificial Intelligence.
Who are we to judge this woman? What one of us could survive the level of scrutiny that befell her? I have no idea what was in her mind, how can any of us know that (Kmele says the same)? Instead of common courtesy by Mr. Cooper, we see epic self-righteousness, as if to say "I'm going to catch those wicked people who let their dog off the leash and show them!!!" What's sad is how commonplace self-righteousness has become, especially on social media.
Eh, I judge her for how she mistreated her dog. She clearly wasn't paying attention because she was caught up in the emotion of the moment, and I don't think she intentionally wanted to harm her dog, but it was negligent and abusive.
Perhaps she feared for her life. Quite reasonably.
Disagree with “negligent and abusive”, however I respect your opinion. I know I wouldn’t have presence of mind in that situation.
Agree
This is an age where the accusation is all. An accusation-based society, driven by a will-to-power.
Are you possibly confusing Megan Phelps-Roper (the author of this piece) with Bari Weiss (the host of this substack)? Just a nudge if so, not making a big deal.
I agree the NYT has really gone off the rails this last year. They're struggling to maintain the emotional excitement of the Trump times. Race and gender are their go to triggers. Nuance and subtlety don't ratchet up the adrenaline. However, we need mainstream news, even the emotional NYT, which I hope returns to real, high quality journalism soon.
This incident has been a good example of the erosion of civil discourse. She needed to get her dog on the leash and apologize for not following the rules. He needed to recognize her fear of him and try to ally those fears rather than exacerbate them. The real story is that this breach of good manners didn't happen and exploded into a national incident.
The NYT's has been "off the rails" for a long, long time. It's been a mouthpiece for the preferred 'reality' of the Liberal intelligentsia for decades and decades. Nothing matters or even exists unless they say it does and then, only how they say it does. Step outside of those parameters and you no longer matter or exist. It's like an alien, ancestral mother of cancel culture.
Race is the trigger. Gender identity, not actual sexual gender. A guy in a dress with a grudge is more "woman" than an actual woman threatened with male violence.
A big part of the danger to modern society today is that so many left-leaning types are deluding themselves into believing that their camp only went off the rails recently. This causes them to deny the true nature of the problem and to propose ineffective solutions.
Yes, there have always been some excessively dogmatic, intolerant folks on the left, however, I think we're seeing totally new levels of intolerance and an eagerness to attack and punish. I feel as if it's now a matter of honor amongst the true believers on both ends of the spectrum, to allow no compromise, consensus or even an attempt to productively communicate with the "enemy". The enemy is anyone who has a slightly different view from your own, unless it is more radical in your chosen direction.
I gotta admit, this piece did not make me more sympathetic to her. His "you're not gonna like it" comment is certainly uncalled for (mildly threatening) and he's obviously a jerk too who was looking to pick a(nother) fight with a dog person, but she still comes off overwrought, hysterical and, dare I say it, performative. There's just not enough here for a reasonable person to conclude that he was an actual threat. Maybe that's my "male privilege" talking, I don't know. But in her shoes I'd leash my dog and leave, not call the police in a panic. Frankly, she's still performing by pretending she's still facing daily threats while living in another country.
Of course the piece is damning to the NYT, WaPo, and other mainstream media. Many were more interested in the narrative than the nuance, but anybody who's surprised by that at this point should reach out to me about purchasing some swampland I've got going cheap.
Last thing I'll say is that, notwithstanding my lack of sympathy for her, I think we ought to be forgiving and forgetting this relatively trivial all around contretemp at this point. I can think she behaved badly that day, and even think she still sounds like somebody I wouldn't particularly want to associate with, without thinking this event should ruin her life.
While I appreciate your attempt at a measured and rational response, I think your perspective encapsulates Megan's point - our culture's lack of sympathy for those we disagree with or perceive of having done wrong is the core of the problem. If we could not find sympathy for someone like Megan and all the heinous things she did in the WBC, would she have been able to turn her life around and help raise awareness for how indoctrination subverts an individual's moral sensemaking? Perhaps it is time we stop vilifying the individuals for the ideas or actions we find reprehensible, and learn to foster the culture and attitudes we deem desirable.
The fact is, an attitude lacking sympathy or understanding for those we disagree with does not leave open an easy path to redemption or rehabilitation. I strongly believe we need to stop our moral grandstanding and judgment of individuals and start compassionately collaborating to build the values we want more of in the world.
When you say "she behaved badly that day, ... she still sounds like somebody I wouldn't particularly want to associate with" it neglects the plasticity of people and their ability to change and grow - if Megan hasn't proved that point then I don't know who will. We need to stop treating people as fixed embodiments of good and evil and recognize them as constantly evolving conduits of ideas, attitudes, and beliefs.
If you haven’t heard the podcast, please note that some of my comments here are based on that.
Amy Cooper is a survivor of sexual assault. So am I — twice in fact — that occurred 50 years ago. To this day, I’m subject to a sudden sense of vulnerability and fear that comes over me in circumstances that trigger feelings or memories of those assaults. These are situations that may appear benign to others. But what Amy Cooper confronted in the park that day was not benign; it carried threat and danger.
Even without PTSD, a woman being confronted by a large man in a secluded area of a park is going to experience fear, anxiety, concern. A sense of heightened alertness and trepidation kicks in, even if one has never been assaulted. This is a universal experience for women. It just is. It must be factored into Amy Cooper’s emotional state in that moment. Perhaps if she were a man, and less frightened of Christian Cooper, she would have done what the Black male dog walker did when confronted with Christian Cooper’s tactics, and knocked him to the ground.
Unless she wears a tattoo on her head, I am a survivor of sexual assault, no one knows that. Bringing that into the conversation after the fact strains for a rationale of her behavior. Her dog was off the leash in contravention of the rules. If she had followed the leash laws, she would still have a job, she wouldn’t have been videoed melting down and nothing - nothing would have happened.
You’re correct — she shouldn’t have had her dog off-leash in that part of the park. As a matter of fact, I’m a birder who got my start at the Ramble, and I detest the cluelessness of dog owners in that space, even though I love dogs in most other spaces.
At the same time, the long-term effects of trauma are not uniform, and sometimes they never fully heal despite our best efforts. Amy Cooper’s emotional response was exacerbated by her history. Because her emotional response has been the subject of much unfair scrutiny and misinterpretation, IMO it’s important to provide this context about her.
And let me add that I find the idea that of bike helmet as a weapon a little odd. Maybe this was a steel bike helmet with blades and spikes, I don't know. Most of them are plastic and styrofoam though. In the law (and yes, I'm a lawyer) we often distinguish between objective and subjective. From the story I heard, I continue to think her panic was objectively unreasonable, however subjectively real it may have been.
Well, for what it's worth, I did acknowledge that the fact that I'm a man may be part of why I perceive this situation differently. But regardless of sex, I'm not sure knocking someone to the ground for giving a dog a treat is justified.
In theory, I agree with you about the justification for knocking somebody to the ground. But in fact, since I wasn’t there, I don’t know why that occurred or what the parties were thinking or saying that might have provoked a physical response.
In any case, I’m not defending that man’s behavior. I am pointing out that people’s response to threat varies with their life experience and, in this case, differences between the sexes.
I'm not sure I follow you. First of all, I wasn't talking about Megan at all. I don't know what she has to do with anything I said. I was talking about Amy Cooper, the subject of the story. And I didn't declare her "evil" or "irredeemable." I specifically said her offense was relatively trivial and that we should forgive and forget. Should I not form an opinion at all about how reasonable her behavior was on the day in question? If so, I'm not sure why I'm here.
Definitely a dude thing....you have never had to worry about being attacked or assaulted simply because, as a female, one is perceived as weaker or an easy target.
And as a woman, you have no idea how much men have to walk on eggshells around you. In the world of cancel culture, we have more legitimate reason to fear than you do.
No, you don't. Women are the ones that have to walk on egg shells around men and society at large. We can't even talk about male violence against men without men getting offended and men too-ing all the time. Women are also more harshly judged by society. The Karen memes are proof of that. If Christian Cooper was a white man, I have no doubt that the reaction from the public would be the same. And I also think that if the genders were reversed, the woman would still get the hate.
Male violence against women*
Nope, yours is not a gendered perspective. I’m a 5’3” woman and I found nothing threatening in that scenario. It was broad daylight, and he was calm and rational, wasn’t moving quickly, and she had every opportunity to leash her dog and walk away. She had easy egress, which always lowers my concern factor when encountering a strange man in an isolated situation. If I heard any kind of “threat” in the dog biscuit thing, it would have been concern that it would make my dog sick, but his further conversation dispelled that notion. He sounded like a guy who was sick of being harassed by other people’s dogs and trying to make a point.
I’ve got more empathy for him, irrespective of race, because I’ve been terrified of dogs since I was chased and bitten at age 5. It took me almost 20 years to overcome that fear and experience the pleasure of having a dog of my own, but I still tense up around loose dogs. People who let their dogs off leash in shared spaces utterly spoil my ability to enjoy that space.
However, the main point of the article is well taken. I don’t trust the media, so I hunted up the full video for myself as soon as the story broke. I did form my opinion while in full possession of all the available information. The presentation in the media was so curated to remove or minimize anything that didn’t fit the race narrative that lots of people made their decisions based on that alone. Would a more truthful representation have helped her, prevented the societal pile-on? I don’t know. But the way they did handle it surely contributed to the harassment, which is apparently still ongoing.
The media is constantly feeding the flames of outrage, especially when the target is small and defenseless. I don’t see them going to bat all that much for the uyghurs experiencing genocide at the hands of the CCP, which is rather more damaging to the fabric of society than the real or imagined sins of the Central Park Karen, but also requires moral courage and a longer attention span. Easier to go after an unsympathetic white woman and get the immediate reward of seeing someone PAY for their sins right now. Even if the “sins” are misunderstood or blown out of proportion.
There is no mercy when the twitter mob comes for you. No due process, no self defense. That begs the question for me - is there a mechanism for forgiveness in this brave new world? When is she deemed to have suffered enough? And who decides?
Did she have a leash for the dog? People who regularly let their dogs run off-leash in a park often don't bother to carry the leash with them. Some do, just in case there is an issue, but some don't.
I believe they said in the podcast that she ultimately leashed the dog and he thanked her for doing so. That just seems to me more like how this interaction should have gone from the beginning. FWIW, I'm one of those crazy dog people who thinks his dogs are his children, so this is not an anti-dog thing from me. I adore my two mutts - but understand the need to be responsible for them.
"Calling the police on a black man because he threatened you with a dog biscuit is absolutely not cool."
How about calling the police on a MAN of any color because he threatened you and you suspect that he's trying to poison your dog? That okay?