And PRIVILEGE raises its ugly head once again.

There's a concept in the law that helps judges determine primary fault. That is..."but for..."

Bottom line, BUT FOR the fact this woman let her dog run free ILLEGALLY in that particular area of the park -- A BIRD SANCTUARY...none of what followed woud have happened.

SHE violated the ordinence, and she knew it. She just assumed no one would call her on it. Why? Because she feels entitled to break rules on behalf of her dog,

Yes, the guy was a wee bit obnoxious, In other words, he stepped out of bounds on behavior a bit, but he has a better excuse than she does for violating the code about dogs in the park.

To wit: headline after headline after headline of black men and some black women being senselessy murdered by cops.

He was determined not to be another statistic.

The woman had very little at risk other than.having to take her dog out of that section of the park.

His risk? His very life.

Why do I think you are very definitely a racist? Becuase you absolutely refuse to listen to the other side of the story. You refuse to acknowledge that life's realities favor you (aka white people) and they very much disfavor the lives of people who are not white.

YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT, HOWEVER ROUGHLY HE MAY HAVE SAID IT, HE HAD TRUTH ON HIS SIDE.

Btw, I am white myself.