Guns: how much longer will it take ....

so you make slimy, slanderous, vicious, racist absolutely evidence less paranoid characterizations of Christian and then after slandering him you say it's just a figure of speech.

Why didn't you call him a 'nature lover concerned onlywith the well being of animals in the park requesting entirely reasonably she show her concern for terrorized animals by leashing her dog as the law requires.

That accurately captures what we know of him and his actions.

all the rest of your charges are vicious opinion, with a murderous spin placed on it.

those are vicious slanderous racist mischaracterization.

She is ashamed for her actions.

He is exonerated.

And you have no power to change that, spout poison how you will. Enjoy your impotence.

Dude, you got nothing here,

that lady fucked up

and abused her dog in the process.

This was a battle of the Karen's, neither one of them was in the right

but she actually looked the worst because of her bullshit ploy with the cops, that was next level Karen

and a bit racist.

Doesn't matter. He had already placed himself in the axe murderer category.

A self serving interpretation that has no basis in reality. Nothing he did indicated he was an axe murderer. He had no axe. He made no move to murder her. Your use of this 'expression' is purely an attempt to create more credibility for your argument (by associating it with murderers) while avoiding reality (he issued a vague threat and tried to give her dog a treat, which could be viewed as threatening - which is the only unarguable reality about any perceived menace)

That is incorrect. He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.

That is incorrect. Once you establish yourself as a likely axe murderer, women are not going to be interested in sitting down to have a conversation with you in a remote area.

Which of course ignores that he’s not an axe killer, not in the axe killer category,

while avoiding the actual facts,

She had every opportunity to talk to him.

It seems you’ve recognised you were wrong, and modified it to 'interested in'.

And of all the paths she chose - she chose the racist one - to keep emphasising his race over and over.

That is incorrect. He was solidly in the axe murderer category.

I am not avoiding any facts.

she had every opportunity to talk to him.

How often do women spray you with mace? For that matter, how often do women file restraining orders against you for stalking them?

And of all the paths she chose - she chose the racist one - to keep emphasising his race over and over. I'm quite sure the 911 operator heard the first time. And after describing him once (only as black african american male), there is no need to keep repeating it over and over with emphasis on the race...except for racism.

There is nothing racist about protecting yourself from a dangerous thug.

Yep, you are avoiding that actual facts

And once again your answer acknowledges (through diversion & avoidance) that she had opportunity to talk to him.

...which avoids why her actions were racist - see above quote, in blue.

I am not avoiding any facts.

Women don't tend to stop to talk with axe murderers in secluded areas.

Falsely accusing her of racism only means that in the future people will deal with menacing minorities themselves instead of calling the police.

I'm sure that you'll deny your culpability when bodies start turning up in Central Park, but it'll be your fault.

And of all the paths she chose - she chose the racist one - to keep emphasising his race over and over. I'm quite sure the 911 operator heard the first time. And after describing him once (only as black african american male), there is no need to keep repeating it over and over with emphasis on the race...except for racism.

. just to let them down gently.

I have facts and reality. People have the right to be safe from dangerous thugs.

The only thing she did wrong was not have her dog on a leash.

There was nothing wrong with her protecting her dog from a dangerous thug.

Preventing her dog from running over to a dangerous psychopath is hardly abuse.

The only thing she did wrong was not have her dog on a leash.

People have every right to protect themselves from a dangerous thug.

Since people are no longer allowed to call the police when they are menaced by a minority, the next person who feels menaced by a minority in Central Park is likely to take matters into their own hands and then slip away before the police arrive to set up a crime scene.

There is nothing racist about protecting yourself when you are being menaced by a dangerous thug. People have the right to protect themselves.