His own words were, "for just such intransigence" which you're translating as "to induce fear". Maybe a definition would help:

Definition of intransigent: characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an often extreme position or attitude : UNCOMPROMISING

He even explains his reasoning:

"The only way they can keep the dog from eating the treat is to put it on a leash."

His own words are right there. You're just ignoring and misinterpreting them because you've already decided that everything Amy did is fine due to her "heightened emotional state" and that Christian is an evil, treat toting, dog murderer.

I've already said, right there in the article, that Christian's words were indefensible. But so were Amy's actions. You're only willing to look at one side of the equation. But sure, I'm the one who's unreasonable. I‘m amazed you don’t see the double standard. Or maybe I shouldn’t be.

And it's the "assuming that is exactly what she said" part that I find funny. So now the police are lying too? You can't trust them to report her words accurately in an offical report? It's all an anti-Amy conspiracy that only you can see?

Anyway, I'm really done this time. Thankfully it doesn't matter what either of us think because the police, who are able to think objectively, already setttled this.