Even if it is a common strategy, that doesn't make it right. Amy had every reason to believe he had a malevolent purpose.

He already said he was going to do something that Amy wasn't going to like.

Would you trust a total stranger, who has already engaged in a conflict with you, to proffer treats to your dog, especially prefaced by a vague threat that he was going to do something you don't like?

If you would, then I'm afraid to tell you that you're quite naïve and probably shouldn't own a dog.

He did threaten her dog. In a court of law, this would definitely pass the "reasonable person" test; i.e., would a reasonable person think that he was intending to harm the dog?

Undoubtedly, yes.

I don't dispute that Amy acted abominably, and far worse than Christian did. And there is no doubt that she intended to weaponize the police against him. This was made abundantly clear when she said, "I'm going to tell them that there's an African-American man threatening my life."

That, of course, is a brazen lie. At no point did he threaten her, or threaten her life.

That doesn't change the fact that he did threaten the dog.