There is a serious question whether it’s wise to pursue Amy Cooper for falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. For one thing, she’s already suffered substantial consequences for what happened without benefit of due process. Yeah, yeah, we all know how every woke anticarceral activists wants her to be burned at the stake. No need to explain why killers deserve our empathy but Cooper deserves life plus cancer. We got it.
For another thing, we’ve promoted the notion that women are entitled to feel threatened, even if irrationally, to make false claims because that’s “their truth” twisted by the litany of excuses as to why it’s too hard to be rational and honest when one’s emotions run rampant. Except when it’s caught on video against a black guy, in which case every absolute tenet of social justice flips on its head and the woman becomes the criminal.
Much as we might want to dissuade people, women included, from falsely reporting crimes against anyone, black guys included, is the point now that a woman acts upon her feelings of fear or threat at her peril? She could be the hero or the criminal of the story, according to what a swarm of gnats on twitter decides?
“Our Office is committed to safety, justice, and anti-racism, and we will hold people who make false and racist 911 calls accountable,” said District Attorney Vance. “As alleged in the complaint, Amy Cooper engaged in racist criminal conduct when she falsely accused a Black man of trying to assault her in a previously unreported second call with a 911 dispatcher. Fortunately, no one was injured or killed in the police response to Ms. Cooper’s hoax. Our Office will pursue a resolution of this case which holds Ms. Cooper accountable while healing our community, restoring justice, and deterring others from perpetuating this racist practice.”
Whether Cy appreciates the language he used is unclear. Is he now a closet Kendian? Maybe. He is, after all, up for re-election, facing the new breed of progressive prosecutors who would wield their power for their ideology, with its supporters on Sutton Place and in the Hamptons.
But if this suggests that his decision to prosecute Amy Cooper is not based solely on her falsely reporting as it would be with any false reporting, an offense almost never prosecuted, then there’s a problem. Is she being prosecuted for her race? Is she being prosecuted because a white woman called 911 on a black man?
But what if the races were reversed? What role does the sex of the person involved play? Does this matter?
It’s not a new trick, but it’s one I try to play. Change the race. Change the gender. Change the politics. Does the outcome change with it? If the Karen were black and the victim white, would people still be outraged? If so, then race or gender is the distinguishing factor, and accordingly, the outcome isn’t so much dependent on conduct but on race or gender. Guess what that makes it?
Just as it’s wrong and racist to prosecute conduct when committed by a black person that would be shrugged off if committed by a white person, it’s the same when the races are reversed. Yet, Cy harps on race here, and expressly says that his office is “committed . . . to anti-racism.” As laughably dubious as that assertion may be given his office’s treatment of black people in Part AR-1, it should play no more role in the exercise of prosecutorial power against Amy Cooper than Christian Cooper, her “victim,” who didn’t seek her prosecution.
Whether Amy Cooper “deserves” to be prosecuted is a matter of some fair dispute, where one would normally expect waves of women to step forward to demand her right to be irrationally afraid without fear of going to jail for it. And yet, will none of the erstwhile woke activists step up to decry her prosecution because Christian was a black man and Cy Vance has taken a sudden interest in being anti-racist?