I have to chuckle ironically here, since it’s a very, VERY interesting incident in many ways, only one of which (the most important one, to be sure) was highlighted here by Andre. First of all (and before anyone here presses the big red button that launches racist Armageddon’s nukes), I agree that identification of the impugned ‘antagonist’s ethnicity’ was inappropriate. The catalytic issue at the heart of the matter was that stringent and explicit Central Park ‘leash-law’ that seems to have provoked the encounter.

If I may put racially polar politics completely aside (PLEASE!), for the moment, far too many people who use public parks do not feel themselves compelled (or even called upon) to comply with applicable rules, regulations and codes regulating use of them. One of the most frequently encountered is the ‘leash-law’ statute that most public parks levy on users, unequivocally requiring that ‘all dogs must be on a leash’. This is frequently interpreted as it being OK to walk with the (off-leash) dog, as long as the owner is carrying a leash on their person (which of course is not full compliance).

When such casually disregardful individuals are confronted by someone who points out this error (no matter how politely), the response is most often reactive at least and aggressively belligerent at best. Thus, a confrontation ensues to varying extents. If the setting is complicated by racist antagonisms, it immediately transcends any basic, underlying causative issues and rises to a whole new level of complexity (as it did in Cooper’s case). The obviousness of that not-withstanding, the basic ‘leash-law’ encounter remains a significant scenario in almost every American public park and while the Cooper affair has ‘gone viral’ (hate that hackneyed and vastly over-used term, actually), dog-walking scoff-laws (such as Cooper) daily create thousands of potentially serious conflicts in our public parks. It’s a small miracle that more of them don’t escalate and turn into equally problematic incidents. But let me elucidate a bit more, here.

Everyone feels that their precious little doggie is incapable of creating the slightest, smallest difficulty for other park users, despite the fact that it isn’t under the ‘positive control’ of a leash that is firmly secured to its neck. It’s only natural, given the saintly regard each dog-owner has for his/her precious little doggie (whether Chihuahua or Pitbull). They are, after all, our ‘fur-kids’, aren’t they?

Well, the fact of the matter is that even the most harmless little doggie can indeed create an untoward problem for others that can quickly become a heated cause of litigation. This possibility is as true for non-dog owners who are in a park with their small infants/children or someone walking a large dog (such as an Alsatian or a Husky) on leash. And the reasons are many. For one, small dogs (or larger ones) running about free are often a source of highly distractive agitation for other dogs that ARE on a leash, since it’s a well-known fact that canine behavior on and off leash is markedly different. My own Siberian Husky is a good example to illustrate this point.

Huskies are well known for what we call ‘prey instincts’, a latent genetic trait that has been inherited from their wolfish ancestors. That is, smaller animals, whether dogs, cats or even small infants, can rather quickly become focalised by a husky as a potential prey. Again, the response is instinctive, rather than acquired, and a harmless little Chuhuahua (or even a small infant) can quite easily set off that response in an excited husky. Even much larger dogs (such as Labradors), off-leash, running after tossed objects, can easily set off a reaction of this kind in certain huskies.

Thus, a leash-law’s primary intent is to keep dogs separated and incapable of harming or interfering with other park users (or dogs) who may be sharing the same area, but leash-law violators consistently fail to recognise this underlying intent and typically disregard the rules to suit their own whim.

Cooper was one of those scoff-laws in reference, of course, a fact that underlies any more high-profile issues that may be implicit (as they were in this incident), but the potential for extremely adverse consequences resulting from a ‘non-racism’ centric incident of this kind is still quite substantial. I know this all too well, having encounters of this sort (minus the racist angle) just about three times a day (when I walk my husky girl in our local park. I can’t count the number of antagonistic, aggressively belligerent interactions I have experienced when trying to communicate the need for leash-compliance to others who disregard the leash-regs.

A few of them could have resulted in assault & battery law suits were it not for considered restraint and applied reflective wisdom. Fortunately, I am old enough and mature enough to recognise that invisible limit past which it is not advisable to proceed and usually withdraw to a more distant area in our park, rather than respond appropriately to hurled insults and importune comments; others might not be so fortunate in inhibiting themselves, but the point remains (or should) that these are ‘public parks’ and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner most appropriate to the common betterment of ALL parties (not just themselves).

Unfortunately, we live in a conflicted age. One in which the old ‘traditions’ of distinctly American ‘rugged, reactive individualism’ are not quite yet ready to die a quiet death. Too many individuals still imagine, immersed in the insular unreality of their naive awarelessness, themselves to be the only person populating their particular universe, and live their lives accordingly. We see this every day of our lives, on the streets, the highways, in public and, yes, very often on the internet. In most cases it is a signal indication of a puerile mentality, or of ‘arrested juvenility’ in older individuals.

The increased density of our society still hasn’t hit the critical-mass tipping point, where recognition of the rights of others (of EVERYONE’S right) mandates imposition of far stricter (perhaps draconian) social controls than we now contend with, but it isn’t that far off (and is well within the foreseeable future, for any prescient visionary to perceive), but we’d all better start wising up sooner than later, if we wish to avoid a complete future social & cultural meltdown of horrific consequences.

Amy Cooper’s rather high-profile encounter is thus merely another harbinger of many, many further instances in which enhanced sensitivity and grossly amplified social ‘awareness’ (along a wide spectrum of related considerations) must play an increasingly crucial part.

Thanks, Andre, for focusing on this unfortunate ‘bump’ on the road to broader wisdom and humane understanding of our common need to interact harmoniously…whenever and however possible!