FBI Drags Google Glass Wearer From Theater

Ualdayan said:
Their his prescription glasses - not only does he say he was wearing them the whole time, but it makes no sense at all that he would be walking around blind until he got into the theater and only then put them on. Unless you're trying to say he's lying, but then again everything else he said has started to be backed up with comments by the movie chain. Now the MPAA has even commented. Quote: "Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft."

If even the MPAA doesn't see how somebody could use Google Glass (what with it's limits on 15 minutes of recording, under an hour of battery life, and numerous other things that make it good for short clips but horrible for anything movie size in length) then clearly somebody at that theater went WAY overboard. Even more overboard than the MPAA themselves even think they should have.
Click to expand...

Well, no legal contract to supply a service exists before the guy acting as Google's roving eyeball buys a ticket. After he has a ticket, he falls under all the theater's requirements and they have a right to deny service to him for any reason regardless of whether its fair or not unless it's one of those protected categories for which a business isn't allowed to discriminate. Wearing Google's Pedo Peepers isn't a legally protected right on private property and a business can deny service based upon the fact that he had them.
 
farscapesg1 said:
Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to others. If I had the money and still wore glasses (thank you LASIK), I could see myself buying it if/when it becomes commercially available and well priced.

At one point people didn't understand why anyone would need a cell phone either... times change...
Click to expand...
You really don't need a cell phone no matter what you do but that is just arguing nonsense. Yes it may make sense for other people you are right. I just did a great job at trying to enforce my thoughts on others.... Back to the main argument though.. While some people think the theater over stepped their bounds they were within their rights. If you would like to change that go start a crusade instead of complaining about it here as that will not change anything...
 
Ualdayan said:
Their his prescription glasses - not only does he say he was wearing them the whole time, but it makes no sense at all that he would be walking around blind until he got into the theater and only then put them on. Unless you're trying to say he's lying, but then again everything else he said has started to be backed up with comments by the movie chain. Now the MPAA has even commented. Quote: "Google Glass is an incredible innovation in the mobile sphere, and we have seen no proof that it is currently a significant threat that could result in content theft."

If even the MPAA doesn't see how somebody could use Google Glass (what with it's limits on 15 minutes of recording, under an hour of battery life, and numerous other things that make it good for short clips but horrible for anything movie size in length) then clearly somebody at that theater went WAY overboard. Even more overboard than the MPAA themselves even think they should have.
Click to expand...

Walking around blind? Yea, if we are assuming things, I'd assume he has more than one pair of glasses. Even so, the kids up front don't likely know better even if he was wearing them when he walked in.


Like I said from the very beginning; there was a MAJOR overreaction to him wearing google glasses. That's not at all what I'm arguing. I'm trying to temper this reactionary bullshit with some old fashioned logic and reasoning.
 
I kind of don't see how they'll combat this in the future unless they simply ban anyone wearing glasses. GG is pretty much in its infancy and 1st gen for what it is. Wait till your recording 1080p at 48 frames per second on glasses that have no definitive marks whatsoever. Fact is, if theaters want to restict these kinds of devices, they're going to have a harder time trying to do so in the future when the tech improves, and becomes smaller or invisible.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
I have a serious problem with a national law enforcement organisation being used to suppress potential intellectual property theft.

The glasshole deserved to be thrown out and all, but the FBI? What, were the marines busy?
Click to expand...


Why does he deserve to be thrown out?

And how do they know the movie was being copied from that theater?
 
Ualdayan said:
Google Glass is no more a recording device than your cell phone is, and I don't see AMC trying to make it a federal case everytime you pull out your cell phone. We all know that rule is for people using camcorders, not multifunction devices that can do multiple things other than recording.
Click to expand...

Well shit, my phones a recording device that they'd ask me to leave for using. Soooooo yea.
 
I think it's more disturbing how sensitive the camera lens detection used in movie theaters is. It's one thing to catch a camcorder, but I can't imagine that poor Glass wearer was the first person to be falsely harassed.
 
Hope it makes a noticeable dent in AMCs profits that they do this to people on the slimmest of suspicion.
 
Nice to see the FBI is done with arresting their own terrorists and now has time to arrest people for going to the movies.

He was wearing the dork scope. So what? Is that illegal? No? Then the FBI and the other folks can STFU.

What will they do when you can get this functionality in a contact lens or in ocular implant? Gouge your eyes out at the bidding of their MPAA masters?

Whenever glass pops up it's fun to see the self righteous crawl out of their holes and pontificate and gloat as if standing around with your face in a phone is any worse.
 
veterator said:
Hope it makes a noticeable dent in AMCs profits that they do this to people on the slimmest of suspicion.
Click to expand...

Just look at the profit of AMC Theater's Chinese parent conglomerate. Although I doubt Wang Jianlin would ever actually admit something like this having any effect whatsoever on profit to shareholders.
 
If the theater has a problem with it, make it a damn rule and get it over with.
If its not a rule its harassment.
Sue those overpriced con artist sons of bitches!
 
Here is the real story behind that Glasshole incident

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/ohio-man-questioned-over-google-glass-in-theater


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Federal authorities say they questioned an Ohio man they suspected of recording a movie in a theater with his Google Glass computer-in-eyeglass device.

The government says no action was taken after the man confirmed the Google Glass was also a pair of prescription glasses with the recording function inactive.

The man was watching "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit" at an AMC theater in Columbus on Saturday. Authorities did not identify him.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Khaalid Walls says the man voluntarily answered questions from officers with ICE Homeland Security Investigations.

AMC says it contacted authorities after identifying someone wearing a recording device. Spokesman Ryan Noonan says the company takes movie theft seriously.

Both ICE, which investigates piracy and counterfeiting, and the Motion Picture Association of America, were involved.
 
"Lawyer."

That is all you ever say. Go on about your business, if they want to stop you they have to grab you and put you in cuffs, at which point they are guilty of false arrest (assuming you aren't breaking the law). Then sue.

"Am I free to go?" if they try to block your way. If they say they want to ask you questions, 'Lawyer." Continue walking, if they block you "Am I free to go?"

Don't say another thing other than that. It will freak them out, being power mad shitstains with tiny penarses ... they will either say you can go, or they will shoot you. Sidebar: Your family will make more $$ if they shoot you. :cool:

In the meantime, one commonsense question.... WHO THE FUCK would want a shitty google glass recording of a movie? Even the actual pirates have quality standards. Jerry Seinfeld had a whole show on the subject. :p

Gentlemen, I give you ...

The F B I
 
Rizen said:
Who honestly watches cam rips these days anyways? The quality is horrible and you can just wait for a screener rip, R5, or other copy which usually is leaked a few weeks after cams anyways.
Click to expand...

Clearly depends a lot on the movie, but small kids who don't know any better :eek:
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
"Lawyer."

That is all you ever say. Go on about your business, if they want to stop you they have to grab you and put you in cuffs, at which point they are guilty of false arrest (assuming you aren't breaking the law). Then sue.

"Am I free to go?" if they try to block your way. If they say they want to ask you questions, 'Lawyer." Continue walking, if they block you "Am I free to go?"

Don't say another thing other than that. It will freak them out, being power mad shitstains with tiny penarses ... they will either say you can go, or they will shoot you. Sidebar: Your family will make more $$ if they shoot you. :cool:

In the meantime, one commonsense question.... WHO THE FUCK would want a shitty google glass recording of a movie? Even the actual pirates have quality standards. Jerry Seinfeld had a whole show on the subject. :p

Gentlemen, I give you ...

The F B I
Click to expand...

This has been discussed multiple times before on here. Some people don't care and do go with the shitty cam version. If their few $$ gets them a really shitty copy from the guy in the van at the gas station then they just hope that they next one they buy from him is a little better version.
 
It has been a long while since I have been to a theater, but I distinctly recall signs informing us that recording devices are simply not allowed. If I pull out my cellphone, or handy cam and point it at the screen I would prolly be asked to leave. Why would it, or should it be different for Google glass?
 
GORANKAR said:
It has been a long while since I have been to a theater, but I distinctly recall signs informing us that recording devices are simply not allowed. If I pull out my cellphone, or handy cam and point it at the screen I would prolly be asked to leave. Why would it, or should it be different for Google glass?
Click to expand...

That is fine. Your stance seems reasonable. You do something the owners of private property don't like...they ask you to leave and call it a day. Normal people with at least 4 brains cells do that. They don't call the FBI and treat you like a criminal in order for some misguided sense of justice.
 
SunnyD said:
lol. Still, the glass wearer was an idiot.
Click to expand...

Ditto that! The idiot walks into a movie theater wearing them on his/her face? They couldn't wait to put them on while in the darkness of the theater, say... after the movie starts. "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein :D
 
Did they sell him the ticket to see the movie while he was wearing google glass?

If so, sue the fuck out of them.
 
This reeks of bullshit.

A movie theatre manager gets ahold of the FBI and they respond within 2 hours because a guy has fucking glasses on? Yeah, because you could tell they're google glasses made for pirating films.

I call bullshit.
 
SunnyD said:
lol. Still, the glass wearer was an idiot.
Click to expand...

In what way was a guy an idiot for wearing google glasses into a theatre?

Did the theatre specifically state they were not allowed?
Nope.. nothing noted in the article...

Was he recording the movie?
Nope

Were his rights violated, based on just the articles take on facts?
Yes...

So who is the real idiot here?

You for making that comment...
 
SS_Wehrwolf said:
In what way was a guy an idiot for wearing google glasses into a theatre?

Did the theatre specifically state they were not allowed?
Nope.. nothing noted in the article...

Was he recording the movie?
Nope

Were his rights violated, based on just the articles take on facts?
Yes...

So who is the real idiot here?

You for making that comment...
Click to expand...

I don't understand the hatred from Google Glass. Sure, I don't want a pair, just like most of you, but the hatred is ridiculous. Are they stupid for paying $1500 to try a new piece of technology? Maybe. Does that give others the right to violate his privacy (all of his photos and videos where viewed before they would leave him alone)? Absolutely not! He had to prove his innocence before they would let him leave.

The sheer amount of paranoia regarding these things is insane! Just because you possess a cell phone, does that mean you are recording a movie, taking pictures of other people around you, or secretly recording anything?

The slightest amount of research would show that these things have about 30 minutes of battery life MAX when recording video. He's not going to get even half the movie on the thing. As others have pointed out, they could have simply asked him to leave instead of calling in the freakin' feds. Really? The feds? Over a potential movie piracy situation?

"You local police can't handle someone with Google Glass that might be recording a movie. This could get violent and dangerous. Call in the Feds!"

A complete waste of tax dollars.
 
Odnocer said:
Ditto that! The idiot walks into a movie theater wearing them on his/her face? They couldn't wait to put them on while in the darkness of the theater, say... after the movie starts. "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein :D
Click to expand...

They are built into his prescription glasses FFS. That's why he was wearing them. If he had waited to put them on after the lights went out... that would have been suspicious activity and warranted a visit from the theater staff more than what actually happened.

Amazingly enough, if some of the story has been verified and you believe the rest he has worn them to previous movies at the same theater even... without incident. So there was a precedent set by the theater and staff to allow them during movies within their establishment, and created an environment where one wouldn't even think about needing to take them off, especially if they use them as their everyday corrective lenses, which as a former prescription glasses wearer I can tell you there were many times I would forget that I even had them on as they just became a part of my everyday life.
 
farscapesg1 said:
They are built into his prescription glasses FFS. That's why he was wearing them. If he had waited to put them on after the lights went out... that would have been suspicious activity and warranted a visit from the theater staff more than what actually happened.

Amazingly enough, if some of the story has been verified and you believe the rest he has worn them to previous movies at the same theater even... without incident. So there was a precedent set by the theater and staff to allow them during movies within their establishment, and created an environment where one wouldn't even think about needing to take them off, especially if they use them as their everyday corrective lenses, which as a former prescription glasses wearer I can tell you there were many times I would forget that I even had them on as they just became a part of my everyday life.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what kind of person would want to wear those damn things 24/7. Considering he has prescription lenses in them, that is what he will be doing. If he has that kind of response in a theater, what kind of response will he get when he goes into a mens public bathroom?
 
SS_Wehrwolf said:
Were his rights violated, based on just the articles take on facts?
Yes...
Click to expand...

"Rights" don't extend to services a private business provides to a potential customer unless they're a protected category for which laws exist explicitly stating you can't deny service and that stuff's limted to race, gender, and similar things. He has no legally protected right to watch a movie or even buy a ticket and the business has every right to tell him no for any reason outside of those protected categories considered illegal discrimination and/or contact law enforcement to ensure that the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of people who represent the interests of that business.

So yeah, wearing Google Glass, regardless of whether or not he's even recording with them at that moment is a legally allowable reason to deny service. I know that kinda stinks for people to be aware of that, but it's just how laws work and that has nothing at all to do with your rights as a citizen of the US.

I guess maybe you could argue that being questioned in an investigation after the fact is a violation of rights if he was detained illegally, but we don't have enough details about what happened in the investigation to decide that. I'm guessing that the questioning wouldn't be seen by a court as a rights infringement since law enforcement was acting on the basis of suspicion to determine if there was a reason to pursue the matter further.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
"Lawyer."

That is all you ever say. Go on about your business, if they want to stop you they have to grab you and put you in cuffs, at which point they are guilty of false arrest (assuming you aren't breaking the law). Then sue.
Click to expand...
Yeah except in this case you would lose with any suit of false arrest, just because your innocent doesn't mean they can't detain you. They have the largest bit of probable cause evidence alive, which is the fact he was wearing Google glass, now through the course of their investigation to see if you actually recorded anything they can hold you. Of course the lawyer trick is always good until they call your bluff and say "fine do you have one or would you like a court appointed attorney?"
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
"Rights" don't extend to services a private business provides to a potential customer unless they're a protected category for which laws exist explicitly stating you can't deny service and that stuff's limted to race, gender, and similar things. He has no legally protected right to watch a movie or even buy a ticket and the business has every right to tell him no for any reason outside of those protected categories considered illegal discrimination and/or contact law enforcement to ensure that the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of people who represent the interests of that business.

So yeah, wearing Google Glass, regardless of whether or not he's even recording with them at that moment is a legally allowable reason to deny service. I know that kinda stinks for people to be aware of that, but it's just how laws work and that has nothing at all to do with your rights as a citizen of the US.

I guess maybe you could argue that being questioned in an investigation after the fact is a violation of rights if he was detained illegally, but we don't have enough details about what happened in the investigation to decide that. I'm guessing that the questioning wouldn't be seen by a court as a rights infringement since law enforcement was acting on the basis of suspicion to determine if there was a reason to pursue the matter further.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for certain for the person you quoted, but I don't think they were alluding to his removal from the movie theater to be an infringement on the person's rights. I think it was the fact that even though his recording equipment was shut off (not committing a crime), he was searched, his personal property taken away (his phone, wallet, etc.), his digital devices searched.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the logic of his choice to wear a recording device into a movie theater (personally, I think he was looking for this incident for some morbid reason). But the reaction from law enforcement was an infringement on his rights IMO. Has nothing to do with being refused service from a business.
 
teh_chem said:
I can't speak for certain for the person you quoted, but I don't think they were alluding to his removal from the movie theater to be an infringement on the person's rights. I think it was the fact that even though his recording equipment was shut off (not committing a crime), he was searched, his personal property taken away (his phone, wallet, etc.), his digital devices searched.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the logic of his choice to wear a recording device into a movie theater (personally, I think he was looking for this incident for some morbid reason). But the reaction from law enforcement was an infringement on his rights IMO. Has nothing to do with being refused service from a business.
Click to expand...

That's completely normal for any law enforcement. They check someone for weapons, illegal stuff, and whatever when they frisk them and take posession of related items for examination in order to determine if something illegal has happened. As long as the stuff is returned after a search is over, then it's no big deal. It's just like getting pulled over by police officers who search your car for drugs and, if they don't find anything, give your keys and purse back to you and send you on your way. Don't you watch cop shows at all?
 
You guys, first, why are you still saying FBI when that was corrected and the agents were ICE which is DHS?

Second, I don't think the theater "invited" the guy in and then called DHS cause what probably happened is after they sold him his ticket he was spotted by another employee, of the ticket seller made a comment about the dude with GG. The manager or a more senior employee then decides he should do something and they called that dude from the MPAA or wherever he was from, it was this guy, not the theater, that called DHS.

All that being said;

GG is not for retail sale yet, you can't just buy it, all the people with it are volunteers who agreed to put the devices through long use sessions and all kinds of environments sort of like beta testers and then they were allowed to buy it. The peeps that have it are supposed to be wearing it everywhere. Law enforcement should expect this, people all over should expect this. They should be acting with more leniency about the whole thing because it's essentially experimental not only technologically, but socially as well. So while it's being "tested" the world would be best served in keeping it in mind that this tech is not "a given for the future", it's not destiny, and we may decide, and Google may decide, that the world isn't ready for something like this. just because you can do a thing doesn't mean it's such a great idea to actually do it. Google Glass is sort of a great experiment and our country, to include our government agencies should be viewing all encounters with this device as special and recognize the import. GG is not just another toy. I will bring up only one future situation to highlight this, imagine every day at work, you and all your coworkers and your company's customers all have GG, everyone is being recorded all the time by superiors, competitors, customers, even your kids. If you can't see the ramifications of this then you don't have a very good grasp of the situation.

Now as far as was it right to call ICE, I think the MPAA dude jumped the gun, I think this was proven after the guy cooperated and allowed them to check the device. Did he call the right people? Yes, but he could have just been decent with the guy from the start and at least given him the opportunity to truly volunteer to prove innocence instead of being coerced into it by Federal Agents. Had I been in the GG guy's place I would have told the guy, damn, I wear them all the time, they are off, I wasn't even thinking about them. I would have immediately handed them to the guy so he could have seen they were off and been reassured. At that point I would have told him I would try to be more careful about them in the future and bring another pair of glasses for the show. If it had been me, I would have hoped to have been treated this way and if I had I would extend courtesy in return.

The GG people also need to understand that although they know all about GG, and so many people who stop them and comment about GG know something about it, not everyone knows what GG is or what it can and can't do.

Anyway, that's just the way I see it.
 
Originally Posted by teh_chem View Post
I can't speak for certain for the person you quoted, but I don't think they were alluding to his removal from the movie theater to be an infringement on the person's rights. I think it was the fact that even though his recording equipment was shut off (not committing a crime), he was searched, his personal property taken away (his phone, wallet, etc.), his digital devices searched.
Click to expand...

This is not accurate or true. First, they told him he was not under arrest. From that point on, anything they ask from him, he was cooperating with voluntarily. Now we all know he felt pressured to do it. He even said they "threatened him" and that if he didn't cooperate bad things would happen. Well they would have. They would have arrested and booked him, really searched him to include a cavity search if the deemed it necessary and that is routine today. So there is nothing good about that scenario. But to keep it straight, he was not arrested, searched, and his personal property was not confiscated. He volunteered to let them look through his belongings etc.

So though this sounds like a terrible experience, it could have been far worse, and people need to keep this stuff in mind.

At the same time, I'll say it again, I think the theater could have asked the man if he had another pair of glasses to wear for the showing. If they got a good feel for the guy, it's all done with no hassles. but they called the MPAA and that dude should have done his job first before calling ICE, it's not like they didn't have mall cops on hand if they thought they needed to detain him awhile.

It was poorly handled.
 
Originally Posted by xX_Jack_Carver_Xx View Post
"Lawyer."

That is all you ever say. Go on about your business, if they want to stop you they have to grab you and put you in cuffs, at which point they are guilty of false arrest (assuming you aren't breaking the law). Then sue.
Click to expand...

My crystal ball says "You going to have someone's hand up your ass some day mate"

Your are correct, all you have to say is you want your lawyer, and many people say that's the only smart move. But man you better have a clear understanding of what might come next. Arrest, booking, and time in a cell with people you might not want to be in a cell with. And you can forget about that false arrest bullshit idea you have cause that law suite ain't going to fly if they have any probably cause at all.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Maybe because the concept of a camera in your face ALL THE TIME makes people uncomfortable myself included. You do not know who is watching on the other side of the camera. People including myself make stupid daily decisions. Just dropping the F bomb, caught on GG and rebroadcasted to millions could spell career suicide. People are entitled to a speck of personal privacy.
Click to expand...

You leave out the important bit, which is that there is someone else making my privacy decisions for me with google glass in the equation. It's not an employer, or an elected representative, or someone who is exchanging me a low cost service in trade for my data, it's some random stranger with no fashion sense, an excess of disposable income and/or no life, and who is (and has been) in all likelihood screaming "look at me" into the void of the internet and has crossed a social line over to "hey look at me look at other people." THe object of the "social" "sharing" is providing a data input that is AT BEST, the wearer doing something with the primary emphasis and focus being those they are doing it with, and it goes downhill from there to straight up voyeurism. The net result of which is that the google glass thing is inherently a bit on the pervy/creeper side of things and likely to piss people off.

As a concept, it is INHERENTLY not an all the time thing if you don't want to cause problems. You WILL transgress in some regard that WILL get you in trouble.

My mechanic puts on something like glass so he can get a live overlay of engine bay components to speed up his work, that's awesome. You can argue interface, and how well it does it and all sorts of issues of technical merit. He wears it while conducting my credit card transaction and records the numbers along with my signature. He may have just been being lazy and wearing his work gear at the billing desk while getting me sorted out, but he has taken a huge step over the line simply by being lazy (or in the google glass world, using the device as google would have you). The movie theater thing is in the same neighborhood.
 
lcpiper said:
Second, I don't think the theater "invited" the guy in and then called DHS cause what probably happened is after they sold him his ticket he was spotted by another employee, of the ticket seller made a comment about the dude with GG. The manager or a more senior employee then decides he should do something and they called that dude from the MPAA or wherever he was from, it was this guy, not the theater, that called DHS.
Click to expand...
The scary thing is how fast the DHS mobilized for this. I mean ok granted he could have been in a major city with DHS offices near by, but still. I call 911 to report an old lady on the roof of a car screaming at a young girl inside "you ain't taking my MFing car!!" while trying to drive away (no shit.. that really happened), and it took probably 10 minutes for the cops to show up, and that's inside the city.
 
By sfsuphysics;
The scary thing is how fast the DHS mobilized for this. I mean ok granted he could have been in a major city with DHS offices near by, but still.....
Click to expand...

You're right, they're office is six miles away, they take the 670 East to 270 North, take the Morse Road exit and they are at the theater in about 15 minutes. They grabbed him an hour into the show, blazing fast response.

“About an hour into the movie, a guy comes near my seat, shoves a badge that had some sort of a shield on it, yanks the Google Glass off my face and says ‘follow me outside immediately’. It was quite embarrassing and outside of the theater there were about 5-10 cops and mall cops,” the man told Gadgeteer.
Click to expand...

So the MPAA guys, a couple of ICE Agents, and outside 5-10 Mall Cops and Cops. There is a difference between five and ten, but I'll give the guy some benefit for being caught off guard and not on his best.
 
In looking a little deeper at ICE, it looks like ICE has assumed some of the FBI's old responsibilities when it comes to cyber-crimes and intellectual property crimes. I think we will see more like this in the future as far as seeing ICE involved instead of the FBI. For me, I think I'd rather see the old pros, the FBI, instead of the new age G-Men under the DHS.

At the same time, the way this guy talks about their questioning approach it makes you think they might be looking for someone specific and they thought this might be there guy. They may well have someone that they have tracked to the Columbus area already.
 
lcpiper said:
Don't keep up with the law much do you. Video Piracy is a Federal Crime, a Felony, and enforced by the FBI. But you knew that before you posted this inane response right?

That being said, the Big shot moron that called in the FBI was an asshole and the FBI agents should have been a whole lot nicer to the dude. Something like, and I imagine a British Accent, just fits somehow..."Sir, I'm sure you can see that we have a concern .. blah blah ... some way to assure this representative that you were not recording the film .. blah blah .....oh? you don't mind a quick search of the device? Blah blah, very sorry for this unfortunate ... blah blah, here are some free tickets, please enjoy many more happy experiences..... oh, and in future, don't be a bonehead and wear that shit into the theater or you are sure to waste another afternoon with us.
Click to expand...

You are always so quick to defend various government agencies, but when they're acting like this, can you not understand why people distrust them so much? They were acting like thugs, pure and simple. The scary part in my opinion, is that no one did anything to assist him against these abusive government agents.

It hasn't gotten too violent yet, but the Nazi's didn't start out murdering Jews in the streets. Things escalate slowly. If people are already okay with the FBI doing things like this, we're already on that slippery slope where eventually they could kill someone or beat someone and no one would help or say anything.

Scary times indeed for our country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top