In May, an incident occurred in New York City’s Central park between a bird-watcher named Christian Cooper and a woman named Amy Cooper (they are unrelated). Video footage was released by Christian’s sister and can be found here. The incident sparked nation-wide discussion, for example by Trevor Noah and covered in national headlines.
The incident is notable in that the interaction quickly was interpreted through the lens of Critical Theory and circulated as evidence of white women (“Karens”) weaponizing whiteness or white privilege in order to put the life of a black man at risk (e.g., here, here, or here). The timing also came right before the tragic killing of George Floyd, and the two incidents were frequently discussed together in the discourse of systemic racism and “white supremacy.” Some even suggested Floyd’s death is what Amy Cooper wanted to have happen to Christian Cooper, that she intentionally weaponized police bias. Others insisted that at least Floyd’s death is a reason why white people calling the police on African Americans is repugnant as a general rule. Recently, a “CAREN act” was introduced in California to “Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies.” (So, perhaps “CARENE” would be the more fitting acronym for them to adopt?)
Amy has apologized but already lost her job and initially lost her dog (that was subsequently returned to her). Now, she faces charges for a false police report made during the encounter.
Before unpacking the details of the incident, it is important to say that we must sort out the things we know, the things we can speculate on, and the things that may be legally actionable. It is also important to emphasize the broader implications for society. Unfortunately, in the arena of social media trials and hyperbole, these things are not always sorted out well.
During the encounter, we know that Amy had a dog that was unleashed in an area where it should have been. Christian approached her to ask for her to leash her dog. Christian has published his own account of this initial interaction before the filming began.
In Christian’s account, he is a concerned citizen who wants the dog on a leash, and proceeds to tell Amy that “If you are going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it” before calling her dog over to him. The film presumably starts moments later.
In the footage, Amy Cooper clearly warns the man that she will call the police and inform them that an African American man is threatening her and her dog. She then does so, and tells them (in what they would perceive to be a very frightened voice) that an African American man was threatening her and to send the police. She repeats this phrase on multiple occasions. Christian ends the footage immediately after he says “thank you.” It is unclear what occurred after that, if much at all; she did eventually leash the dog, and in some accounts the police arrived and “police determined two individuals had engaged in a verbal dispute. There were no arrests or summonses issued; both parties went on their way.” In others, neither Amy nor Christian were present. It may be these aren’t mutually exclusive.
Many of the events are simply matters of fact, others require varying levels of speculation (such as the popular claim that she wanted the police to murder Christian). Exploring intent and filling in the gaps is not always straightforward. Claims of racism should require an additional layer of consideration. For instance, how would she have handled the incident had Christian been, say, a white male instead? Likewise, how would the encounter have been reported on?
Critical Race Theory is one lens to interrogate this issue, although CRT sees racism and power dynamics in every multi-racial interaction (see the work of Robin DiAngelo, for example). “Whiteness” is seen to permeate public and private life at all levels. Analytic attention centers on “the production and reproduction of dominance rather than subordination, normativity rather than marginality and privilege rather than disadvantage” (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 236). As observed by critical education theorists Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg, “Even though no one at this point really knows what whiteness is, most observers agree that it is intimately involved with issues of power and power differences between white and nonwhite people.” There is broad agreement among those covering the Amy and Christian Cooper story that she weaponized whiteness against his blackness. Christian Cooper also has insisted that Amy’s act was unmistakably racist.
However, did we all see the same version of events on the camera footage? Do we understand the full context of the events that we did see? Can we agree on the counter-factual scenarios of how the event may have played out with a white man? As the saying “get the record straight” implies, there is a difference between truth and popular narratives, and recognizing and correcting for this difference matters if we are to fully describe the event, and, as will happen, it will matter more when the case proceeds in the court of law. It may also be important for future cases where a racial component can potentially insert itself.
To give some sense of how far narratives (the record) can veer from the truth, below, I will provide bulleted points covering a range of possible scenarios that can be stretched over the known facts, some of which may be true or false (and possibly unknowable). I will also provide my own speculations at times. Each of these is a potential record attempting to narrate various aspects of the true story of the incident, and, as is clear, the available interpretive range is quite broad.
- Overt racism with racist intentions: Amy Cooper was malicious, racist, and wanted to call a “hit job” on a black man for inconveniencing her in the dog park.
- Racist without racist intentions: Amy Cooper is a racist, and consciously or unconsciously emphasized the “African American” description, but also legitimately thought she was in danger due to his statements. She called the police for protection and not to place him in danger.
- Racism ambiguous, identity factor descriptive: Amy Cooper simply used “African American” as a description, much like “wearing red pants.” This is possible, although difficult to reconcile with her using that description to him, so maybe she is a racist and wanted to emphasize that fact to everyone involved. That would be unfortunate, but not illegal.
- Racism unconscious and possibly slight, identity factor descriptive: In a variation of the above, maybe Amy Cooper is unconsciously racist to some degree and simply pointed out an unnecessary description, much like “my friend, he happens to be gay, has a nice bike.”
- Racism indeterminable, motivator was suspicion of a potentially menacing stranger: Amy Cooper, whether racism is involved or not, was afraid, being isolated in the woods, that a strange man approached her saying, “you won’t like what I do,” proceeded to call her dog, pull out a treat, and then begin video recording. She held onto her dog tightly to avoid its possibility of running to Christian. Some have suggested that Christian was simply being friendly, although this is difficult to reconcile with his preceding statements, and even if he was, she may not have interpreted the situation that way. Very few people encounter men in the woods who say “you won’t like what I do,” pull out dog treats, and begin filming them.
- Racism indeterminable, motivator was genuine fear: Amy Cooper was truly afraid for her life after Christian’s comments and being isolated. Some have contended that a truly panicked individual would run away, and not approached him, but it is not obvious how different individuals react when a larger and more athletic person makes a credibly perceived threat. See e.g., Flight-or-fight response.
- The prototypical “Karen”: Amy Cooper is an overly dramatic individual, the same type of person who would make a public scene at the coffee shop if someone looked at her the wrong way. This personality trait manifested itself in the confrontation with Christian.
- Camera changed the dynamic: Amy Cooper reacted more severely than she would have otherwise, whatever that might entail, because of her awareness of being filmed and her actions being put on social media (which may have induced additional stress or panic).
It is impossible from the known facts to determine which sets of motivations were applicable in the scenario. People have taken tremendous liberties at filling in the relevant blanks in all of these ways and have, despite the existence of the others, often displayed incredible certainty in their preferred narrative.
These interpretive modes have been reinforced by further assumption-making, such as the following speculations.
- Race mattered centrally (Amy Cooper is racist): If Christian Cooper were a white man, she would have just put her dog on a leash, let him feed the dog, and no incident would have occurred.
- Racism didn’t matter (racism indeterminable): If Christian Cooper were a white man, she would have reacted the same, and may or may not have mentioned “white man” to him and to the police. The journalistic narrative would have been that “women are always afraid,” he should have minded his own business with the trivial offense of an unleashed dog, and that absolutely no one should tone police the reaction of women who live with the daily fear of being attacked by a stranger. Perhaps he should go to jail for the threat against a woman.
Moving to the phone call with the police, there is even more capacity to speculate and build a narrative:
- Histrionic behavior (racism indeterminable): Amy Cooper did not feel threatened and she knowingly acted hysterical on the phone, weaponizing the police against a black man. This is possible, although it is not clear that even a strong racist that was acting fully rationally would choose to escalate the situation to this degree over simply leashing the dog and getting away.
- Panicking and fear (racism indeterminable): Amy Cooper felt threatened and said incorrect things on the phone; perhaps she was never in real danger, but did not know that.
- Better safe than sorry (racism indeterminable): Amy Cooper simply felt the escalating situation required taking steps for her own protection and, rationalizing that “it’s better to be safe than sorry,” overacted in the situation, even if the hyperbole was intentional.
- Escalation of camera (racism indeterminable): Amy Cooper reacted more performatively in any of the above ways knowing she was being filmed.
As we can see, there are many possible interpretations that can be fitted onto this story. These narratives form a kind of record that may or not be reflective of reality. In a society that values truth, fairness, and the due process of law, however, it is crucial that we value “setting the record straight” and thus aligning the narrative-based record with the truth to the greatest degree possible. In our current social-media age, this seems—and may be—legitimately difficult, if not impossible, which defines a significant problem in need of a solution for our times.
If you believe Amy Cooper should go to jail for a racially motivated false police report, consider that there may be a 50% chance your interpretation was wrong. Or 80%. Or 20%. Or even 5%. If you can admit this, what is the threshold you are willing to accept for imprisoning people, or even destroying their private life and reputation.
Turning our attention to the specific question behind the “CAREN” Act, here has been much emphasis in popular discourse on why calling the police is inherently harmful, or why any ”false” report should be legally actionable. However, these analyses are not compelling for several reasons.
First, despite the terrible George Floyd death that was coincident with this story, there are many tens of millions of police encounters every year. Fatal police shootings are in the range of many hundreds of people per year. Most of these are armed victims (there were 9 unarmed black people killed in 2019, at least by on-duty officers). In absolute numbers more white people are killed, although after weighting by population (but not by rates of participation in violent and other crimes) there is a disproportionate number of black people killed, but these still require comparing very small numbers. In either case, the probability of death of an unarmed civilian is infinitesimally small. At the very least, the narrative that calling the police on a black person is inherently a death sentence, or at least dangerous, is indefensible.
Second, concerning “false reports,” if I decide to call the police at this moment on neighbors that I have never met and claim they threatened my life, this is clearly unethical, irresponsible, and should be legally actionable. However, the spirit of the law requires intent, and we cannot imprison people for people who may be frightened and call the police and either say incorrect things, or it is discovered later that the fear is misplaced. Furthermore, people call the police all the time for trivial matters, such as people playing music too loud, a campfire slightly too big in their backyard, or noticing a stranger walking around in a dorm room or on the front lawn. One can argue these are petty, and result from nosy neighbors, and in some cases irresponsible, but they are not criminal phone calls.
Third, and more fundamentally, billions of individual human encounters occur every day. The type of people in these encounters partly consist of folks who are reasonable, unreasonable, argumentative, unfriendly, paranoid, creepy, dramatic, nosy, evil, introverted, well-intentioned but lacking in social grace, having a bad day, confused, stressed, mentally well or unwell, distraught, etc. A healthy society does not require public shaming, mob interpretation, mob justice, or trending social media and national news headlines concerning every encounter that goes wrong, where people argue, and especially where mixed interpretations exist—even, or perhaps especially, given the present cultural sensitivities to the issue, when those awkward encounters are cross-racial. Disputes, even ones in which the police are called for perhaps illegitimate reasons, do not require criminal sentencing or being fired from jobs. People need to be allowed to be nosy, to be overly dramatic, to not mind their own business, to argue amongst themselves, and even to be wrong. Legally, they can even be bigots.
The Amy Cooper case sets a dangerous precedent. A law like CAREN would likely require considerable mind-reading (achieved, in practice, by potentially cynically misinterpreting everyday encounters for any whiff of masked or coded bigotry), and potentially dissuade countless people (particularly the vulnerable) from calling the police in truly dangerous or potentially dangerous situations. This would clearly cause much more harm than the false reporting it intends to eliminate. If you are women who feels threatened for your safety at night, you may not under such and act call police unless you are 100% sure the threat is credible and danger is already imminent, especially if a black man is involved. Furthermore, if you do call the police, you must use the correct language. You must also act in the moment in a way that Twitter can agree you were actually scared. This is an unreasonable standard.
Even if we reject “commonsense” approaches to understanding why the CAREN Act is poorly conceived, it is also “problematic.” This is quite a departure from what most of us would consider reasonable legislation in line with the more reasonable requests by feminists for equal access to enjoy a relatively safe society. It is a substantial leap away from the less reasonable and yet recently fashionable “Believe All Women” feminist slogan. How this problematicity is being overlooked in the haste to do something in the instantaneous moment is unclear, but it seems indicative of the kind of responses we’d see in a moral panic, not sane and levelheaded approaches to crafting good and effective legislation.
A reliable result of these circumstances is that racial bias will be read into more multi-racial situations as Critical Social Justice spreads further into culture, emphasizing power dynamics, hidden or unconscious motives, incentives for Whites to maintain “the status quo,” weaponize their whiteness, etc., in every conceivable situation. When these ideas become part of the law, the consequences will be profound. If people can go to jail for run-of-the-mill park arguments where the police are called due to perceived threat, or malicious intent inferred in all interactions, mass incarceration will occur at a scale never seen in this country. All of this points to a simple and almost undeniable fact: we, as a populace, are overreacting in haste to highly interpretive narratives around circumstances that we do not fully understand and seem not to want to fully understand. It is crucial we take a stand for setting the records straight.
60 comments
Lots of very opinionated people on here describing scenarios that exist only in their minds.
What is clear to me is that no one can know for sure what was going through her mind when she made the call.
It’s plausible that she feared for her safety. It’s likely that the charges won’t get very far.
However, I see no problem with the filing of the charges because it’s also plausible that she filed a fake report without experiencing any true fear with regard to her safety. If I were the DA, I would likely not pursue this any further, however other (perhaps political) motivations are likely at play in this instance.
She deserve due process and hopefully that is what she will receive. I am hopeful that the justice system will get to the bottom of this. It seems like a huge waste of limited legal resources to pursue this, but the DA is a publicly elected official and will suffer the consequences, if any, at the ballot box.
Reading the comments section proves the point that people will read an interaction based on their own personal biases and beliefs. Humans are hopelessly biased and only rigorous training in logic and reason will help overcome those biases and see reality for what it is. We can’t ever hope to arrive at the objective truth without logic and reason and science.
Clearly in the wrong she weaponised her white female
privilege against a black man by playing a frightened woman on a call to the police assuming that they will répond rapidly and automatically believe her description of events. “Believe all women” right?
This has got to be the stupidest thinly veiled attempted defense of a blatantly obvious false police report I’ve ever read.
The mental gymnastics on display here are incredible, complete with an 8 point counter factual scenarios, 2 point speculations about racial intent, and 4 point speculations about the phone call.
Anyone who isn’t autistic and is even remotely aware of the long history of how vulnerable black are when police are called on them, could watch the video and come to the only common sense conclusion, that the woman was obviously distressed for no reason and called the police for no reason. Amy Cooper obviously knew that repeating ‘African American’ to police dispatch would add extra urgency to her false report. Just as Christian Cooper obviously knew from experience and history that if he did not film the incident, the police would likely not believe him and take Amy’s side.
So this is what anti-social justice theory has become…. Apologia for power and privilege in the name of edgy anti-woke posturing.
Peter Moss – how is it a blatantly obvious false report? Your judgement is based on his version of what happened. How do we know that is factually correct other than that he claims it to be?
According to the comments on a community news site for the Upper West Side of NYC, Mr. Cooper has had at least three confrontations prior to his encounter with Amy Cooper, wherein he was described as threatening, aggressive, and abusive. Mr. Cooper is also on a public meeting record prior to his encounter with Amy Cooper alleging he was assaulted, presumably as one commenter assumed, because of one of these confrontations that he is alleged to have instigated in a threatening manner.
You’ll find the witness accounts in the comments section of this article:
https://www.westsiderag.com/2020/06/10/the-tension-between-birdwatchers-and-dogwalkers-was-simmering-even-before-the-amycooper-incident
What is remarkable is the lack of due process in this case and the assumption of guilt for a false report based solely on the testimony of the presumed victim of the false report. Imagine now if there’s an actual trial that he repeats his story, and she repeats her claim that she was threatened. In addition to these claims, other claims like the ones mentioned in the link above also emerge indicating a history of Mr. Cooper being threatening, aggressive, and abusive after instigating these confrontations. One commenter claimed they were ready to contact the police about Mr. Cooper weeks before the encounter with Amy and regret they hadn’t done so.
What should a jury decide at that point if the prior witnessed accounts of Mr. Cooper’s confrontations are deemed credible? How many credible witnesses would you need to hear from that establish a prior pattern of Mr. Cooper being threatening before you consider the possibility that Mr. Cooper’s account glosses over that he might have also been threatening in his encounter with Amy Cooper?
Before you berate others for mental gymnastics, let due process play out. Let the testimonies be presented, let them be examined and cross-examined, let other witnesses be called, and then decide after all is said and done rather than accuse others of autism or being apologists for power and privilege.
Who knows? After a trial, I might regret my urging here for patience and adherence to due process if all the facts weigh against her. However, if the facts, including corroborating testimony, weigh heavily against Mr. Cooper’s claim that he was not threatening, would you regret your hasty comments and judgments above?
OK, I will take the bait
What is wrong with calling the police? Why didn’t the man call the police on the woman? I have PTSD from being attacked by a pit bull and I will call the police on unleased dogs. The police work to resolve disputes. Do we know if the woman was asked if the man was black or white by the dispatcher? If it were not for the video uploaded to the web this would not have been worthy of consideration. What’s wrong with calling the police?
I don’t know what the ‘autistic’ insult is all about but this is ludicrous
“come to the only common sense conclusion, that the woman was obviously distressed for no reason”
So being confronted by someone who directly threatens her dogs physical well being and her emotional well being is distressed for no reason? And then trying to lure the dog to him so he can do whatever he intends to do or at least to ratchet up the threat? Your commonsense is way out of whack.
Peter Moss, the interesting thing about this case is how, in the face of incomplete information, some people fill in the gaps a priori with utter conviction.
I believe the point of the article is to, with painstaking deliberateness, demonstrate the error of that conviction.
I’m very inclined to call her the asshole here, and yes, a racist one.
But I rolled my eyes at the valorization of Christian Cooper. First, while as someone with serious allergies I very much want people to leash their dogs, it’s not a capital offense. The dog had been cramped up in an apartment for months. Cut people some damn slack. And who appointed him hall monitor anyway? MYOFB.
Second, after she refused to leash the dog, the right move was to walk away. It’s a big park; find somewhere else to birdwatch. Instead, he escalated. Any woman alone in the park would have heard his statement as a threat. “Why is some random man – twice my size – haranguing me, filming me, and now threatening me, and what is he trying to do to my dog?” Just leave the woman alone, FFS.
Of course, she obviated any sympathy for herself by calling the cops the way she did. Two entitled jerks meet in the park in a pandemic. Sigh.
^Yes. This. I totally agree. This incident should be a non-issue between two insufferable adults. Instead, it blew up to national news. I have no sympathy for anyone involved.
All I am saying is I bet money Amy Cooper is a registered Democrat who not only voted for Obama twice she made sure everyone that she knew or came in to contact with knew about it.
As much as I am confident I would dislike Amy if I met her, and probably disagree with most of her philosophies on life, I’m sick of cancel culture and tired of people losing their jobs for having ‘wrong thought’. At the end of the day that’s what happened here.
She was piled on by everyone during their ‘2 minute of hate’ and as much as I don’t feel bad for her, I’m not a fan of this behavior being used on anyone, even a-hole Metropolitan racists….
You’ve worded it harshly, with many judgements, but I agree with your interpretation overall. I think Amy was irritated and probably scared–you don’t just say, “You won’t like what I’ll do to your dog” without generating alarm. I’d be very agitated in this situation. I may become aggressive rather than cower away, but the anxiety would be there.
My feeling was that she may or may not be racist, but she was certainly weaponizing the conception that the police target black males–IN ORDER TO WIN THE ARGUMENT. Not necessarily due to some inherent racist tendency. We, as a society, need to learn to distinguish between when someone is exploiting a stereotype for gain vs when someone actually believes the stereotype.
Honestly, I have sympathy for neither party. Amy for being inconsiderate enough to unleash her dog despite the rules and act totally immature when confronted such that this blew up. Christian for being such a self-righteous busybody in the first place, making what could easily be construed as a threat, and then recording it and airing it enough to cancel her. They’re both unpleasant adults imo who should both be ashamed.
Liz – you raise some excellent points. I agree completely with your distinction between exploiting a stereotype vs actually being a racist. I would add that the argument in the moment when she drew on the stereotype was about whether he should be recording her. I would also add that his alarming words weren’t initially directed towards her dog, so she easily could have received them as a threat to either her or her dog or both.
Thank you though for pointing out the important distinction between drawing upon a stereotype in the middle of a heated argument and actually believing the stereotype 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The punishment she has already endured seems to be tied to the latter assumption, not the former interpretation. The former interpretation may not excuse what she did, but it does potentially qualify the punishment she has received and future punishments planned for her.
Another point to think about is the NYC mayor’s role in all this. He branded her on Twitter as a racist from the very outset, not a person who drew upon a stereotype in the heat of an argument. It’s worth considering what his authority, power, and media platform added to the situation from the very beginning and since then.
Still trying to figure out of Christian Cooper thought the dog should be on a leash – presumably because it’s a threat to him unleashed – why would he then call the dog to himself with a treat?!!?! That would freak me out too!
Almost definitely the woman was not racist. I’m sure she was just a liberal who is actually fooled by the notion that police hunt black people for sport. She probably did feel fear because he was talking like he was going to kill her dog or something, maybe feed it poison. That’s the presumption in that situation when somebody tells you that they’re going to do something to your dog, and you’re not going to like it.
So, when she had an altercation with this black man who just threatened to kill her dog, she got mad, and yeah she probably was afraid. He’s a man who think she deserves to suffer, and she’s a woman. He could probably do whatever he wanted to her.
So I think she probably thought she could scare him away by saying she’s going to call the police on him. In her mind, police really do mistreat black people. They don’t, but because she’s liberal, in her mind they do. If this was a real problem, then naturally he’d want to take off before they got there.
But he wasn’t leaving. So she had to act like she was in trouble more so that he would think that these cops are going to really hurt him. She wasn’t trying to get the police to come. She was trying to get him to run away because as a liberal, she’s actually dumb enough to believe the lie. But he was just trying to get a viral moment using threats to incite her into anger and panic behavior such as calling the police and acting like he was doing more to her than he was. He’s a piece of vile human garbage. She’s just a typical stupid liberal.
I ended that comment with “by any means necessary” – by which I meant, by any legal, non-violent means.
I think one should be able to have this discussion, with this range of viewpoints, in a current affairs or ethics class. Instead, it’s being done on an alternative website and not in person. We should be able to talk about this in person without a CT/intersectionality framework rendering certain things unsayable.
Couldn’t schools with faculty with explicitly non-CT views be formed? People too numerous to count have seen the religious aspects of CT, so non-CT folks are in some sense “CT atheists.” Seems like they/we would be able to defend ourselves in the courts with some sort of freedom of religion argument. Then it would be up to the CT folks to prove they’re not a religion, which would be impossible, and we’d be back were we started, trying to get the no-CT view out there by any means necessary….
I am onboard with the anti-Critical Studies in general, but this is not a hill to take on for us. When feeling sufficiently threatened, anyone will dig deep and find evil within, and I think this is what she did. She either had some level of prejudice or did not know how to deal with confrontation and thus overreacted.
Jclaude, You very well may be right, or you may be wrong. I didn’t actually see the author passing judgement on this incident. What I took away from the piece was we need to be more self-aware when we’re speculating vs interpreting facts. The author points out a wide range of narratives that can reasonably be told from the existing facts but he isn’t picking the ‘correct’ one. On the contrary, he’s arguing we objectively won’t know the intent of the individuals, but we’re attempting to criminalize the acts anyway.
Thank you. I would also like to point out her treatment of her dog during the encounter, which I found rather disturbing. If only the dog had had a phone…
I am >90% sure she was trying to ‘weaponize’ race. But this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If you believe you are in imminent danger, are there any potential weapons you shouldn’t use to protect yourself? (Of course if race IS a viable weapon, that is a bad thing about your society.)
The problem is, she was not in imminent danger, and had no legitimate reason to think so. The situation was created by her and could have been ended by her. She didn’t think the rules applied to her, and was angry at being challenged about that. So I am >90% sure that she intended to mislead the police, to some extent, when she contacted them.
Of course 90% sure means that there is reasonable doubt, so she should probably not even be arrested, let alone convicted, for filing a false report.
But it doesn’t seem quite right, when someone is 90% likely to be guilty of wrongdoing, to simply forget about it, as if nothing had happened. That is why if I lived near Central Park I may well have shared that video, with a message of “judge for yourself”. And it is why there should be police records about these kinds of thing – so that if she does it again, a pattern may be established.
Are you also >90% sure he wasn’t trying to “weaponize” his racial Karen stereotype against her? Was he in imminent danger of being discriminated against when he started recording her? Had she given him any legitimate reason to think he would be in danger when he started recording? Does he think the rules against racial profiling someone without cause don’t apply to him?
Your 90% threshold seems both arbitrary and rhetorical.
I personally knew a now-dead woman whose mistake was to, in a open-air well-populated parking lot in the middle of the day ask a man fitting the general description of Mr. Cooper what he was doing (breaking into cars) as she entered her car..
That was her “crime” and all she said.
Weeks later they found her raped and dead body dumped in a field. The perp was eventually caught which is how we know what happened at all.
You talk as though that doesn’t happen in the real world to real people.
Do you have insurance? Why? Because there is a far far greater than 90% chance you’re going to be fine this year. Do you wear a bike helmet? Why? Because there’s a far far greater chance you’ll fall and hit your head in the shower than sustain brain damage or die in a bike accident.
We tell women to trust their instincts and act if they feel threatened because the consequences of not doing so and being wrong is catastrophic. Mr. Cooper should have just manned up, contextualized the woman’s fear and done everything he could to abate it. Instead he enflamed it then mocked her for it.
Women, if you feel threatened please, don’t use this incident as a model to base you actions on. Get your phones out and use them. You can survive being Coopered on the internet, yes, you can. You cannot survive the sudden, unleashed physical violence a full grown male can direct at you. Your only job is to survive for your children and for your loved ones. Everything else will pass.
If Amy is reading this, pleasee know that this is a hard part of your life but only a small part, and it will pass. There hundreds of millions of people who know you did the right thing, who support you unequivocally and unashamedly and we will make that materially known to you should we ever be graced to be in a position to do so.
You are not hated on the internet. You are not hated on the street. You have a long life ahead of you which you can fill with love and family and community and respect and success, just as you did before you met Mr. Cooper.
#GiveAmyAJob
Toto, this is a great analysis of the encounter from the perspective of women’s safety. I’m amazed that the common take on this episode focuses on the potential harm police could have inflicted on Mr. Cooper for being a black man vs. the potential harm that a man who acted like Cooper could have inflicted on Amy and/or her dog. First, I agree that it’s true that any encounter with police carries with it potential danger, and that being black would add some additional fear of the encounter going badly. But if a man approached me as Cooper did, and said he was going to do something and I would not like it, and then also attempted to lure my dog–that would basically terrify me, and I live in a majority-minority city and do not get terrified by mere unfriendly encounters. The fact that Ms. Cooper responded with a call to police and immediately reported that the man was black is of unknowable import. What she was thinking is something known only to her, and maybe not even then. Maybe she was expressing her inner racist. Maybe she was panicked and aware at a basic level that she should give police an immediate description–which should include a person’s race–and the words came out in a way that implies she is racist. But the bottom line is that a MAN initiated an encounter with a woman who was a stranger to him and said a threatening thing. How can it be possible that he does not know that is a situation that will frighten many women? She’s a jerk, for sure, and may have been hostile to Cooper because of his race, but where’s the understanding that his conduct was extremely insensitive to a woman’s completely justified need to worry about personal safety 24/7?
I’m in awe of the Woke Cult deciding what a ‘real’ threat SHOULD look like….”
He didn’t videotape to protect himself from false accusations. Re-read his account that Jeremy posted. He already calls her a Karen after just her initial responses to his statements. He wants to document her presumably acting like a stereotypical Karen only after she yelled “DON’T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!!!!”
The possibility of protecting himself wasn’t actually relevant until after he continued to refuse her requests to stop recording and the “Karen” that he had already judged her to be “took a dark turn.” Before the dark turn, he already judged her as a white female stereotype that might be entitled or prone to over-reaction, but not accusatory. Apparently then, the point of filming was to potentially shame her for appearing to be a Karen, as the recording only becomes protective for him after the “dark turn.” What gets left out of most discussions is his active role in creating the conditions — recording and subsequent refusal to stop — for the “dark turn” to occur; in other words, his actions turned her dark, so to speak.
Consider this.
– Absent his recording for suspecting she might be a Karen, there would be no full emergence of an alleged inner Karen. After all, she already appears to be in the midst of leashing her dog when the video begins. If he doesn’t start recording, she completes leashing the dog and has no reason to approach him to ask him to stop recording. The interaction likely ends with the dog leashed and no further words exchanged if he doesn’t start recording.
– If he starts his recording but stops recording at her request, her alleged inner Karen might have fully emerged, but it does not take a dark turn since he would have acceded to her request to stop recording.
– It is only after he refuses to stop recording after several requests, that an allegedly full Karen not only emerges but takes a dark turn from what he already perceived as over-reacting (or entitled) to accusatory.
Jeremy might consider writing a follow-up to this article, this time placing Mr. Cooper as the interpretive object of inquiry.
To protect himself from false accusations.
How does filming Amy Cooper protect him from false accusations? It doesn’t show what he was or wasn’t doing. It only shows her reaction. He could have been doing anything behind the camera.
Let’s say Christian Cooper was described as “wearing a red sweater”. What part of the video can he use to show the claim is false? Even with the video we would only have his word that he wasn’t wearing a red sweater.
So, since the video can’t be used for the purpose you propose, I return to the original question: Why did Christian Cooper start filming the encounter? It was a weird thing to do.
Hi Jeremy. I have a question that I have never seen discussed before: Why don’t those who critique CRT create a competing anti-racism plan? Like it or not, CRT has a monopoly in the market place of ideas and challenging it without giving a competent alternative solution isn’t likely to work. For those who wish to lessen or eliminate racism, there’s only one game in town.
Brian – good question; one I don’t have a compelling answer for. Even though CRT has been incubating for a few decades, I feel like it has taken society by storm so quickly and so thoroughly in just the last few years, a counter attack has been under-served.
Why did Christian Cooper pull out his mobile phone and start filming?
Maybe I’m just showing my age here, but it seems a rather weird thing to do. The sort of thing a serial killer who likes to keep a record of his murders to pore over later to relive the thrill of the kill might do. I’m not saying Christian Cooper is a serial killer, but if someone came up to me in an isolated spot, announced “I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it” and pulled out a phone and started filming, that’s certainly a possibility that would flash through my mind.
So, why did Christian Cooper start filming the encounter? In all the coverage of the incident I’ve seen or heard, no-one has addressed that question. It’s a weird thing to do — and in the midst of a confrontation, weird is frightening. Seems like a needless escalation on his part.
Filming = accountability. It’s so easy to hear about an incident and read it through my own bias. I certainly didn’t think the Amy Cooper incident was going to be as bad as it seems to be. Watching the video certainly confirmed the difference between real fear for safety and using the police to settle a dispute. Without the videos, I think we would have believed the perpetrators in regards to Floyd and Arbery. Same thing here.
Brian,
I am not calling him a serial killer at all either, he was filming because he was looking for someone with their pet off their leash, film them, shame them, and get a negative reaction and Amy obliged in the grandest of ways. Why else would non pet owner carry treats around in a park. She’s terrible, I am not defending Amy I’m just pointing out the guy went there to make Amy, or someone like her happen. For the record I loathe people who walk their dogs in parks with no leash if it is required.
My point is he had a goal and achieved it, it is a noteworthy part of the story. And SHE was the wrong one here…but no one deserves to lose a job over stuff like this.
Love this – really breaks it down clearly. Thank you.
Jeremy,
Unfortunately, despite your well written, rational, fair, and empathetic essay American mobs would rather just destroy people. What you’re talking about would require some thinking and there’s no self righteousness in it. If people start to take your approach then how will they vent their anger and virtue signal their moral superiority? I bet with all of your rational intelligence you don’t have an answer to that. The reason why people loved the Jerry Springer Show so much was because we need to have villains in our lives. People that we can look down to and say “we’ll at least I’m not them”. If we can’t find a good one we’ll create one instead. Nice try though; maybe after we spend the next ten years going through our own Maoist cultural revolution we will consider your idea. In the meantime, thanks for being brave enough to stick your neck out for truth and justice.
My goodness how complex reality is. Thank good for the intelligence shown in this article. We can never assume that we have access to an ultimate truth. There are many truths, and being able to agree upon that, we are able to witness here a conscious act of compromise. Both “actors” can walk away from the incident with better self-knowledge, cognizance of context, and with an understanding that Words Matter.
I’m not sure I follow you when you say “There are many truths”.
I suggest that the absence of “access to the ultimate truth” doesn’t default to “There are many truths”. There is one objective truth but we would rarely have access to that in it’s entirety, especially in a 10 minute interaction between two strangers. For instance, we simply can’t know the individuals’ intent based on what we see before us. But this doesn’t mean there are now many truths.
Now that it’s clear that white women can and will be charged with a crime, as well as have our careers ruined, based on the political narratives of the moment if we call the police…I’m buying a gun. And if I were her, I’d have been scared he wanted my dog separated from me in order to rape me in the isolated woods. But that’s totally irrational, right? Women never get raped in isolated, out of the way places by men they’ve just angered. Doesn’t happen.
He simply asked her to put her dog on a leash, so it is absolutely not true that he “wanted her dog separated from her”. She was clearly not afraid of him – she refused to put her dog on a leash and later even approached him when he started filming her.
You are implying (without any evidence) that she thought that he wanted to rape her. It is disturbing that you are so quick to associate this innocent Black man with rape. You claim that you are buying a gun – hopefully you will never have a chance to use it against an innocent Black man…
I know right? Hopefully she uses it on an innocent white man. That would be like totally ok.
You need to review the raw facts of the case.
He said “… then I am going to do something you’re not going to like…”, then called her dog to him.
He explicitly says in his own account that he pulled a dog treat out of his bag and called the dog to him. What is that, if not attempting to separate the dog from her?
What was Christian implying when he told Amy she wasn’t going to like what he did next?
This was an argument between two petty and rude ppl that Christian escalated needlessly by making what is easily inferred to be a veiled threat.
Why would he say that if he wasn’t looking for a reaction from her? Is that how you talk to ppl who don’t do what you want them to do? If so, stay far away from me and mine, please.
Fantastic article. What Christian said could easily be perceived as a threat to the dog,, any “descriptive” language Amy Cooper used in the phone call is just that, descriptive. The right thing happened, which was the police mediated and sent everyone on their way.
The ironic thing is that Christian Cooper is quite clearly a Karen himself getting in someone else business over petty nonsense. So this is the expected outcome when two Karen’s collide, extreme over reaction from both sides.
Christian is indeed a ‘Karen’. Good point.
This is a good example of a mundane spat that is now being used to a) push an agenda and b) ruin someone’s (Amy Cooper) life. I find both parties to be petty and rude, but I can’t in good conscience say that one or the other is or is not racist.
Amy is a rule breaker. Christian makes manipulative statements to garner a reaction from the rule breaker. He escalated a situation that needn’t be escalated by implying he would hurt Amy or her dog. Amy reacts to manipulative statement by calling cops, escalating it further.
And, after the fact, the video is released to the public. Now you and I and everyone in America can be judge and jury, when it should have been no one’s business but Amy and Christian.
Social media and fair play do not work well together. I feel bad for Amy (who also seems to fit comfortably in the Karen mold)… not bc she is a saint or I think she did nothing wrong, but bc her life is being interrupted for an argument she had with a fellow Karen. The second Karen involved, Christian, seems to be coming out of this like a champ. I’m sorry, but that’s not justice, and I’m concerned we’ll be seeing a lot more thought-policing in the near future.
Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-four. Big Brother is watching us all, apparently, but it’s his little brothers and sisters on Twitter that we really need to worry about.
It must be noted it’s hard to argue Amy genuinely thought she was in physically danger. She stood arguing before and after, a clear sign she didn’t feel theaten. It is unfortunate that the most like interpretation is tainted with ‘legitimately thought she was in danger due to his statements.’ This is hard sell which cause the other unlike interpretations seem to be on equal footing.
On a foot note: I would like us to be as honest as possible because the far left and far right is getting a lot wrong. We don’t do any favours to our intellectual standing/honesty by not facing the strongest arguments and most likely interpretations.
You say that it is ‘hard to argue’ that the woman felt she was in genuine danger; why? I see no reason to muddy the waters with a statement like that. Is it your experience that women who are approached by men they don’t know, who begin filming them and using language that could be charitably regarded as threatening at best should not make any moves to protect themselves? I’m curious as to why you feel that way. What would you rather she had done?
I’m glad that you’re concerned this site be as honest as possible, so what exactly do you see as the ‘most likely interpretation’? I have a hard time believing this is anything other than you being utterly transparent and acting in bad faith, but I’m certainly ready to have my world rocked. I’ve seen this exact style of argumentation hundreds of times at this point, and my gut tells me this will end with you making the implication that there is racism afoot. I’m sure you’re right, really, it’s so pervasive these days. Let ‘s say for the sake of argument that I am a racist. Cassie Delphi is a racist.
I don’t care about such an opinion because it is laughable. People like yourself have made even stronger terms, like, say, Nazi, mean nothing because you throw it around without rhyme or reason. For the sake of argument–now what? You have established that everyone is a racist and a nazi. If the majority of people you label as such don’t care because you have long since become a noise droning incessantly in the background, what will you do? Part of me thinks we are seeing the answer to that reflected in cities all over the globe, but what is it you want? Please don’t say something trite like ‘an end to racism’ as it’s been established that this is impossible. Solve the problem. I am incredibly eager to hear your thoughts. Really.
Surely the substantive point was that she made use of the gentleman’s race. Why was this a relevant fact to be presented to a 911 operator. I can have no certain insight in to the ladies state of mind but this does seem to be a mendacious attempt to gain attention from the police.
If she is not racist then she is at least a very competent dog whistler and knew the racial tropes that she wanted to conjure in the mind of her then audience. To draw the conclusion she is a Nazi is absurd.
“Why was this a relevant fact to be presented to a 911 operator.”
uh, for the purpose of identifying the person the call was about to the police ?
What is the “correct’ response today, if a dispatcher asks the caller to describe their assailant/threat? If we describe physical attributes (black/white/brown/asian/indigenous/man/woman/indeterminate/able-d/disabled/old/young /does that make one a misogynist/racist/ableist/ageist/(fill in the blank)- phobist? oh, that’s right….we’re not supposed to call for help…….and even if we wanted to, we couldn’t, because “Defund the Systematically-Racist Law and Order Acolyte.”
I agree with you, she walked toward him. She might have been in a heightened state of anxiety but her actions do not show that she felt threatened. I also agree we should be as honest as possible and sometimes that might mean the left or the right has a point.
I agree. I am dismayed by the number of people who breeze over the fact that she was ignoring the regulations for that public space, that dogs be leashed at a all times, and focus on the “threat” he posed by offering the dog a treat. As much as I hate the new mob mentality, I can’t help but see many levels of racist bias in people’s response to this story.
I also strongly support the notion of fact-based argument, no matter which political stripe the facts happen to validate.
I for one breeze over her violation of the leash rules and focus on the threat he posed because that is the central argument in the charges against her: that she filed a “false” report of someone threatening her. Any details about him offering a treat would seem to be irrelevant and post-hoc. She did not know he was offering a treat when he announced his threatening words and he himself claims he didn’t have a chance to toss treats towards the dog. Given the distance between them, how was she supposed to know that all he intended was offering dog treats? This also breezes over the fact that offering a dog treats is not necessarily harmless, depending on a dog’s reaction to unknown treats.
I agree she should be fined or whatever the local civil penalty is for not having the dog on the leash. As a dog owner the only thing I dislike more than a pet owner who let’s their dog run without a leash, where it’s required*, are dog owners who don’t pick up their pet’s waste.
Man I hate that. Tells you a lot about a person actually. Sorry, ADHD kicked in
You’re 100% right, I think she’s the villain here, even if him carrying treats to lure dogs not on leashes is ultra creepy and seems as if he was fishing for this, or something similar, to happen….strange right? Regardless, no one deserves to lose their job over something like this. Cancel culture needs to be cancelled
*don’t get me wrong there are dogs that are well trained and obedient, and owners who are responsible when their dog is off the leash but if it’s required by law, just do it until you can change the law ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wouldn’t call her a villain, or the man a victim. It’s a minor altercation between two individuals that’s symbolic of nothing larger. It shouldn’t merit national news. The issue is that the Twitter mob, who should have no say in administering justice, are framing this as having larger significance. They might as well be the fanatical crowds from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” demanding people “follow his gourd”, or “Follow the path of his discarded shoe”.
Look, the lady wasn’t following leash laws, and seemed kinda racist while behaving irrationally. The guy deliberately lured her dog away with treats after telling her he was going to do something and “you’re not going to like it.” Then he filmed her reaction with intent to post it online.
It’s a minor altercation between a couple of potential jerks.
What else would you expect from 2 coopers?
“… but if it’s required by law, just do it until you can change the law”
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to have a law rescinded, once it has been enacted by self-important, over-zealous and over-bearing legislators, and provides yet another avenue for self-fullfillment for self-important, over-zealous and over-bearing enforcement types?
And I say this in regards to both dog-on-leash regulations, and the proposed Caren Act.
Search for “Soft Despotism” for further elaboration.
Trying to bait someone else’s dog away from its owner with treats is a crime. She had every right to feel threatened and call the police. The man in that situation is the one who should be arrested, if the law were being followed.
Greg – as the author points out; you may very well be right and you may very well be wrong. We all can/do speculate and draw our own conclusions, but the critical point is that we need to be self-aware we are simply speculating and not drawing up facts.
IMO, this is the crux of the matter. Today’s SJW, or social media in general, nearly always mistake their own speculation for fact.
All peoples would be much better served if we properly differentiate between our speculation and facts when ruling on cases in the court of public opinion.
PS I agree with your plight for honesty, just not sure it fits the context of the original article’s theme.
The man involved in this encounter can be argued to have deliberately and cynically amplified the perception of threat by ambigously announcing he was “going to do something you’re not going to like”. I am not arguing his words were a crime or a threat but that he knew they sounded threatening to her and that is why he offered up that construct in that way. He wanted her mind and imagination to begin to play on the weird open-endedness of his phraseology. If someone is violating a leash law, that doesn’t empower you to “do” anything whatsoever in retaliation, much less something you announce “you’re not going to like….” It empowers you to do what she did : pick up the phone and call the police.
This man knew what he was doing in my view. He could not control the woman’s behavior and that enraged him so deliberately, malciously and rather shrewdly triggered off fear in her, fear for her physical safety and the safety of her pet. This is a game some people play. ” Am I threatening you ? Do you feel threatened ? I’m not threatening you ! “. It’s made worse in this case by the obvious intelligence of the man.
The whole unspoken point of the CAREN law is to force people, especially women, especially white women to hestitate and second guess themselves which,as we all know and as I am sure the authors of the CAREN law know very well is exactly the opposite of what experts tell women to do for their own physical safety if they feel something is not right, specificly, trust their instincts.
The authors of the CAREN law want women to do just the opposite because, as their ilk has said elsewhere, white people need to give up their safety. They want dead white women but that’s just the entre, by their own admission, they want white genocide a phrase which is especially apropo of this incident since it’s “ambiguous” in its intent the same way “I’m going to do something you won’t like,” is.
Thanks to the hostile discussion of race initiated and perpetuated by the critical race theorists, every white person in the nation is now aware that blacks-on-white violent crime is 10x, literally an order of magnitude, more frequent than white-on-black crime. They also know that 5% of the total population- black males – acc ount for 50% of all violent crime.
Now that critical race theorists have successfully ‘raised awareness” in people, do you seriously expect those people will override their million-year-old, genetically encoded instinct for self preservation just to satisfy the explictly stated genocidal blood-lust of race hustlers and academic grifters?
When in history has anything like that ever happened ?
#GiveAmyAJob