This encounter happened because AC was flouting the rules in having her dog off lead.
CC says she refused to leash her dog when asked (he claims she said he needs his exercise) and she denies this saying she was about to put the dog on a lead just before he started filming.
She said he was aggressive and he denies that.
They both agree that he said words to the effect that "your not going to like what I do next" and then got out the dog treats.
Let's think about that.
Why would CC have got out the treats unless she'd refused to leash the dog or had made moves to do so?
There's no explanation that fits other than AC had refused to to leash her dog.
So if this part of her narrative isn't plausible I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of everything she said prior to the filming starting.
I would at this point add that I think CC luring dogs away from owners with treats was not a good idea, even if his motive in protecting wildlife was admirable. That however did not warrant AC's response.
Moving to the start of film all she cares about is being filmed. She's aggressive and keeps moving towards this man she claims was threatening.
ALL she needed to do was leash the dog and walk away then there would have been nothing too film. If she had leashed then dog when first asked the filming wouldn't have been necessary.
She repeatedly escalated an encounter of her own creation and then weaponised his race against him.
On the last thread, much was made of CC being "wrong" in approaching a lone woman and he should have predicted she might escalate, especially when he handed out the treats.
CC has admitted he's used the treats on other dog owners not following the rules (male/female black/white).
Irrespective of whether the treats were an appropriate response to "leash refusers" the argument that he should modify his behaviour to appease possible escalation from a white woman goes to the heart of racism.
Racism is founded on the very notion that the colour of your skin dictates behaviours, actions, expectations and consequences that would not apply to someone white.
CC shouldn't have to have behave any differently to AC than anyone else.
Suggesting he should isn't a feminist issue in the sense that if AC had been black then the outcome would have been different because a black woman would not have reacted as AC did. This didn't happen because AC was a woman. It happened because she was a white woman.
Arguing otherwise is simply agreeing that white woman can legitimately weaponise race if they feel scared/aggrieved or any other emotion at a level of "threat" that's in their sole discretion to determine - and if you agree with that then you're part of the reason why systemic racism is still sadly so prevalent.