Am I the only one who is a bit skeptical of this? Seems incredibly hard to believe, with no hard sources. (Email from Friend of a Friend of a gadget blogger is not where I want to be getting my credible news of law enforcement overreaching)
Agreed. Not only is the source extremely questionable, but the details in the story seem odd.
Grabbing expensive hardware off someone's face? Grabbing glasses off someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back and put their hands up to block. Anyway, police would just order the person to hand over the glasses.
Federal agents conducting a (probably unrecorded) private interview for hours in a mall? They'd have to arrest him before that.
Someone named Bob Hope from "the Movie Association"? Parents don't name their children after celebrities, and Bob Hope has been famous for three-quarters of a century.
And getting a non-apology and some lame movie passes after being wrongly detained for hours? This makes no sense.
> Grabbing expensive hardware off someone's face? Grabbing glasses off someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back and put their hands up to block.
A crazy street dude once snatched my glasses off my face on a street corner. I had been firmly ignoring his ranting and personal space invasion, so I wasn't prepared to take action. It's not that improbable if the victim isn't expecting it and doesn't have excellent reflexes.
I told him very loudly to give them back, and he suddenly noticed that I had about 8 inches and 150 pounds on him and handed them back without a word.
So what you're saying is... he got your glasses because you weren't paying attention to him? :)
You could be right. Maybe he had poor reflexes or was startled by the badge or something. No single detail damns the story, but enough rub me the wrong way to make me suspicious.
No, the police don't have to arrest you to question you for hours. They have a time limit where they have to let you go or charge you, but a) it varies by state and b) it ranges from 48 to 72 hours.
You're mixing up a stop with an arrest. If the police have reasonable suspicion, they can detain you only as long as necessary to investigate that suspicion. Usually that means minutes, not hours. If they have probable cause, they can actually arrest you, search all your belongings, search your person, and hold you for days before charging you or letting you go. The story claims he was only detained, not arrested.
Actually, I'm not. Police can detain you for questioning for 48-72 hours, depending on jurisdiction. After that time, they must either arrest you or set you free. Things are much worse for people classified as "material witnesses". One such person was held in prison for 16 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness
What exactly do you find hard to believe?
Is there something in the story that seems unlikely to happen? In my opinion, although of course I can't verify the source, the story itself sounds very plausible, due to details like him being separated from his wife in a room, the prescription glasses bit, four movie passes and the no-goodbyes bits.
I'm aware of the “many details” bias so I'm just saying, either this story is true, or somebody is very good at inventing fictional stories about problems with Google Glass. I don't really see the point of the second option, so I'm sticking with the former.
Your average Ohio gadget lover who likely doesn't actually want himself ID'd in the news, nor does he know who to reach out to in the mainstream media. Seems believable, but not yet credible, due to the lack of verification.
