So what you are saying is you can see no behaviour or words that are menacing on that video, and the only thing you can come up with is his mere presence must be menacing.
Yes. Actual reality is the only thing that I can come up with.
When a stranger delivers what can easily be viewed as a threat to harm a woman or her pet, and then commits an act that can easily be viewed as an attempt to harm her pet, him then standing around near her is going to be viewed as menacing even if he is not currently doing anything.
Even while she is the one that walks up to him, and point s finger at him...
The only person seen engaging in menacing behaviour on the video, is her.
Trying to scare off a menacing threat is perfectly reasonable behavior.
Yep. She certainly wouldn't want to be held accountable for her histrionics.
The notion that someone can be punished for calling the police when a black man tries to kill her pet is why the proper way to deal with threatening minorities is to shoot them and then quietly slip away before the police arrive.
Apparently just couldn't help herself though. She still menaced him on video.
A reasonable attempt to make him go away and stop menacing her.
Actually that's purely your interpretation.
That is incorrect. It is an obvious fact that when a stranger tells a woman that she isn't going to like what he is about to do and then tries to lure her pet away from her that she is going to find that quite menacing.
Just as valid is she is an utter racist who didn't like a lesser being (a black man) telling her to leash her dog, and started attacking him in the only way she felt able.
That is contrary to reality, not valid at all.
This too is an interpretation and an extreme one at that - but it's made to show you that your 'reality' is an interpretation.
Reality is not an interpretation.
My view is that she probably suffers from some form of anxiety, which kept building despite his reasonable behaviour (after the dog incident), and her (mildly) racist side came out. That too is a perspective. I wouldn't call it reality. I would simply say that I think it is very strongly supported by the evidence.
Calling the police when a black man is menacing you isn't racist.
It should be obvious - in your version of the timings 'he left after she called the cops' - your version implies he's got a guilty conscience. The video shows he stayed after she called the cops (the actual timing implies he doesn't have a guilty conscience) and he left after she leashed her dog (saying thankyou. Ie he left once she started following the rules of the park, which he had asked her to do)
I don't imply things. I come right out and say them. I did not say anything about a guilty conscience.
"She felt threatened continuously until the guy went away and stopped menacing her."
"The threat did not alleviate until after the guy went away and stopped menacing her. And he did not do that until after she called the police."
...are purely about pointing out that she legitimately found his presence menacing when he was recording the video.
Whatever is on his conscience is completely irrelevant, and I don't like to waste words on irrelevancies. I like to get straight to the point.
If you are curious about my assessment, I asses that he indeed did not have a guilty conscience.
But so what? It does not change the fact that she legitimately found his presence to be menacing, and had every right to try to protect herself.
Err...your 'descriptions' of her actions leave out large swathes of both her actions, and her words, and her tone, and the context (all of his actions).
That is incorrect. My description accurately describes all of her actions. Note how when you try to list supposed exceptions to my description of her actions, I am able to point out how they are not an exception at all.
His actions are not relevant. Having delivered what could easily be seen as an ominous threat, and having committed an act which could easily be seen as an attempt to harm her pet, his continued presence was menacing no matter what he did.
Mostly you just seem interested in assigning motivations that suit what you want.
It is obvious that a stranger who said and did what he said and did will be seen as menacing.
I have repeatedly said she's engaged in racism based on (ie. with explanation provided relating to):
- all of her actions
- all of her words
- taken in context with the situation, including
- all of the guys words
- all of the guys actions
All she did was call the police when a stranger said that she was not going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her.
Your summaries (here, saying I based calling her racist on just her actions) seem to be often inaccurate in this discussion (ie. not fitting with reality).
That is incorrect. Everything that I am saying is consistent with reality.
Which has never been under dispute. The issue was you trying to:
- remove those quotes from their actual explanation, then
You asked where you had called her a racist. I pointed out where you called her a racist.
- trying to put a new explanation on them, and inferring such is my actual explanation (ie. putting words in my mouth)
Pointing out reality is not putting words in your mouth. It is merely stating what the facts actually are.
I'm surprised you keep on with this nonsense line. You've been told multiple times now that if you removed the actual context (and explanation) of why it was racist - then I would agree with your 'new interpretation' (ie. new version of events) not being racist
So your untrue accusation of racism is based on untrue statements about her behavior. That does not make any of it any less untrue.
Purely your interpretation. I hold a different one.
That is incorrect. It is a fact that the accusations of racism are false.