This is utterly bizarre. When you watched the video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd's neck, did you need to hear "his side" before you could see that whatever happened beforehand, the force used at the point where Floyd was face down and handcuffed was unnecessary and unreasonable? Did you need to hear Chauvin's life story to know that at the point he was kneeling on Floyd's neck and listening to him beg for his mother, he probably wasn't in fear for his life?

I'm all for understanding a story as completely as possible. I go to great lengths to do that in all of my writing. But I don't feel the need to pretend I can't figure out anything about a situation by applying a basic understanding of human behaviour. Especially after watching a video of it.

Again, I freely acknowledge that Christian didn't behave properly. And sure, nobody knows exactly what happened before the camera started rolling. I wouldn't take Amy or Christian's word on that. But given that Christian freely volunteered the information about his own poor behaviour when he didn't need to, given that, at the very least, we know that Amy behaved the way we see her behaving on camera, and given that we know for a fact that Amy lied to the police and was charged by them for doing so, I don't see any problem drawing some logical conclusions based on that.

Speaking of lying to the police, again, you very much appear to be looking for any possibility you can to cast doubt on what happened. I don't "believe" that Amy lied to the police because of a random article. I know it, because I already went and checked the report from the assistant DA who filed charges against her over the second call. It is not in dispute, by anybody, that Amy lied to the police. Amy herself admitted to doing so. She was offically charged for doing so. The charges were dropped because Christian refused to add to the pile on by assisting the investigation and because Amy agreed to undergo some "don't be racist anymore" training.

So no, it's not surprising I believe that's what happened. Because I checked. I linked the first story I found on Google so that you could learn this new information and do whatever further checking you felt was necessary to convince yourself. I don't ask my readers to take my word for anything. That's why I always provide lots of links to further reading. You shouldn't blindly trust any news source. I certainly don't. But given that you care enough to be debating it with me, I'd have thought you would at least do your research before assuming my bias.

Which brings me neatly to my last point. Have you considered the possibility that Bari is biased? Did you notice that she leaves out important information and context in her reporting of the story? Because she does. She doesn't include (or even link to) the video in her report and barely describes the events in it. She just mentions that it "looks really bad". That video is the main piece of material evidence of what happened and she glosses right over it. As a fan of hers, I was genuinely surprised and disappointed by how sloppy (or at least agenda-driven) her reporting of the story was.

I haven't listened to the interview and I'm not particularly interested in doing so. Not because I don't care about the truth, but because as I said, I don't think I'm going to get it from somebody who is known to have lied to the police about this incident and has every single motivation to continue doing so. On that note, you say that Christian leaves the scene just as a passer-by is alerted by Amy’s “cry for help”. Who did you get this information from? Did this passer-by corroborate the claim? Because the video shows Christian thanking Amy and leaving the instant she clips the leash on her dog. Which is what he was asking her to do from the start. There is no conceivable reason for her to “cry for help”.

So my question to you is; why are you so willing to take Amy at her word, but so doubtful of every other piece of information from the police and your own eyes? Do you not see the issue there? I also couldn't be less interested in the skin colour of the people who do or don't believe her. The fact that Christian was also a douchebag to a black man has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether Amy is racist and a liar. This is a complete non-sequitur.

I don't think Amy is a monster. I didn't try to portray her as one in the article. But her behaviour was very clearly influenced by Christian's race. And it was also very clearly dishonest. Yes, you have to tie yourself in knots to argue these incredibly plain facts. And if we can't get to that indisputable starting point, I don't see how we can even begin to get into the nuance of the story.