Oh I don't know, maybe the mocking sarcasm?

So maybe they weren't agents, just people pretending? Maybe it was just an influencer production to get more followers?

As to what else he (the filmer) could have done, he could have stayed calm, not gotten emotional and resorted to insults, could have stated his position without attitude. He gains nothing by behaving in that manner and could cause them to look at him even more.

"Oh I don't know, maybe the mocking sarcasm?" If I was using sarcasm, I would have replied with a swooosh as well or something else noting it.  If you don't understand a statement or question, please ask to clarify before replying.  "are you serious, joking, or being sarcastic?" is acceptable.

Now your 2nd sentence is an answer to a question asked.  See how easy that was.  No goal post moving, or swooshing needed.  I'm not saying your answer is right or wrong, but at least it's an straight answer. But to add to your comment about not using insults or attitude, it falls under free speech.  With regard to emotion, some people do get emotional when their rights are being investigated and possibly taken away.  I don't fault him for this as I'm assuming he wasn't prepared for someone to come and investigate him about it.  Like he wasn't prepped hours/days in advance.  And to reply to both, so far, he hasn't been arrested, so what ever he did worked.  We do not know what the result could have been if he refrained from insults, anger, attitude as we dont' have a time machine and he cannot re-do the same interaction.

You said FBI contracts out now you say I am speculating because I responded using your claim?

I also didn't say anything about FBI policy. Show me where it is FBI policy to contract this type of investigation to a private company.

You make no sense.  You're the one who said the FBI would not farm out criminal investigations to contractors.

I think you have a hard time accepting that others might be smarter than you believe yourself to be.  You tried to muddy the topic by saying contractors don't do criminal investigations, Where did anyone say a criminal investigation was being pursued?  Not all reports are opened as criminal investigations, especially when something like this particular incident is involved.  It's just a reported social media post that someone decided to report.  Obviously it was harassment by the person reporting it.

Show me where the investigators ever said they were conducting a criminal investigation.

They were there to gather information from the subject, not investigate a specific crime.  That's perfectly valid for a non-special agent to do.

Once the interview report reaches the field office, they can then decide if an actual criminal investigation is warranted.

in this case, it was obvious on its face this was a harassment tactic against free speech, not a criminal investigation.  Had the subject said something to be taken as a threat, or created suspicion that the post was really a threat, then the case would have been given to the FBI criminal investigators.

Again, the FBI doesn't have the manpower to waste on checking out these types of reports.  Do you not watch the news?  The FBI responds to thousands of reports daily, and they aren't all "criminal investigations."  Just following up on reports.

How is my premise flawed? 

The vid clearly explains what your asking. You're just choosing to ignore it cause you don't know how to dig ourself out of the hole.

Your premise is flawed because a lack of arrest does not mean there is insufficient evidence to arrest. Cops don't have to arrest you the instant they have PC, they could choose to delay an arrest for all sorts of reasons.

No the video doesn't explain what I asked. The guy taking the video claims it is about a social media post but what did the post say? Was the post he mentioned the same one the agents were there about? The video doesn't explain that so stop pretending you know the whole situation because this guy posted a short video where he makes a couple of vague claims.  Just admit you don't know the answers so you don't dig your hole deeper.

"Oh I don't know, maybe the mocking sarcasm?" If I was using sarcasm, I would have replied with a swooosh as well or something else noting it.  If you don't understand a statement or question, please ask to clarify before replying.  "are you serious, joking, or being sarcastic?" is acceptable.

 

Now your 2nd sentence is an answer to a question asked.  See how easy that was.  No goal post moving, or swooshing needed.  I'm not saying your answer is right or wrong, but at least it's an straight answer. But to add to your comment about not using insults or attitude, it falls under free speech.  With regard to emotion, some people do get emotional when their rights are being investigated and possibly taken away.  I don't fault him for this as I'm assuming he wasn't prepared for someone to come and investigate him about it.  Like he wasn't prepped hours/days in advance.  And to reply to both, so far, he hasn't been arrested, so what ever he did worked.  We do not know what the result could have been if he refrained from insults, anger, attitude as we dont' have a time machine and he cannot re-do the same interaction.

What this guy did was absolutely legal, no question there but I would argue that he still could have handled it better which is why I wouldn't hold his example as that of a master. If I were driving in the road and someone cut me off abruptly I could swerve and brake quickly to avoid impact then give him the middle finger but it wouldn't be the best way to handle the situation.

If he had taken a different tone and tact he could have probably gotten more information from the agents (whoever they were) without inflaming the situation while still not providing any incriminating statements that could be used against him. There are many videos of individuals who calmly and respectfully decline to speak to officers when they don't have to without being confrontational like this guy who I would hold up as a masterclass type event over this guy.

You make no sense.  You're the one who said the FBI would not farm out criminal investigations to contractors.

I think you have a hard time accepting that others might be smarter than you believe yourself to be.  You tried to muddy the topic by saying contractors don't do criminal investigations, Where did anyone say a criminal investigation was being pursued?  Not all reports are opened as criminal investigations, especially when something like this particular incident is involved.  It's just a reported social media post that someone decided to report.  Obviously it was harassment by the person reporting it.

Show me where the investigators ever said they were conducting a criminal investigation.

They were there to gather information from the subject, not investigate a specific crime.  That's perfectly valid for a non-special agent to do.

Once the interview report reaches the field office, they can then decide if an actual criminal investigation is warranted.

in this case, it was obvious on its face this was a harassment tactic against free speech, not a criminal investigation.  Had the subject said something to be taken as a threat, or created suspicion that the post was really a threat, then the case would have been given to the FBI criminal investigators.

Again, the FBI doesn't have the manpower to waste on checking out these types of reports.  Do you not watch the news?  The FBI responds to thousands of reports daily, and they aren't all "criminal investigations."  Just following up on reports.

You brought up private contractors that weren't relevant now you say I am muddying the topic?

Do you think this youtuber is being investigated by private armed contractors for a government security clearance? If so just put that out as a possibility

If it wasn't criminal/criminal related then why else would armed officers show up to his home?

What evidence is there that this was an obvious harassment tactic against free speech?

You brought up private contractors that weren't relevant now you say I am muddying the topic?

Do you think this youtuber is being investigated by private armed contractors for a government security clearance? If so just put that out as a possibility

If it wasn't criminal/criminal related then why else would armed officers show up to his home?

What evidence is there that this was an obvious harassment tactic against free speech?

I used to think you had problems with reading comprehension.  Now I see you just like to argue 100% of the time.

Instead of providing a lucid response, you start out  arguing over what i said.  That's again muddying the topic.

Every contractor who works for any law enforcement agency and might have the need to protect themselves is able to carry a gun.  A badge is also available on amazon for FBI Contractors.

You still didn't answer why they refused to show their credentials.

And this is obvious harassment, because the people asking questions left without any answers.  In a  criminal investigation, they would have the right to detain him for an investigation, take him to their office, and conduct the interview while recording it.  Didn't happen.

I never said the harassment started with the agents.  i said someone reported them to the FBI in order to harass him -- not much different that SWATTING someone.  Pure harassment, and the government lets themselves be used by people willing to file a report.

Your premise is flawed because a lack of arrest does not mean there is insufficient evidence to arrest. Cops don't have to arrest you the instant they have PC, they could choose to delay an arrest for all sorts of reasons.

No the video doesn't explain what I asked. The guy taking the video claims it is about a social media post but what did the post say? Was the post he mentioned the same one the agents were there about? The video doesn't explain that so stop pretending you know the whole situation because this guy posted a short video where he makes a couple of vague claims.  Just admit you don't know the answers so you don't dig your hole deeper.

It's called logic. Thanks for trying to dig your way out of the hole.

So with regard to this conversation, he broke no law. So no arrest.  Had he broken a law, the "agents" there would have arrested him and not tried to talk to him more.  Or are you saying say he did break a law, they would try to interview him more, even though they have enough evidence to arrest him, then walk away.  Only to return later to arrest him at a later date and time.

I mean, maybe they didn't have the right kind of car to hold a detainee, or maybe the "agent" who flashed a badge and a gun didn't have cuffs.  So you're right, maybe they had to go back to their HQ to get a different car and cuffs, then arrested the guy.

It's called logic. Thanks for trying to dig your way out of the hole.

So with regard to this conversation, he broke no law. So no arrest.  Had he broken a law, the "agents" there would have arrested him and not tried to talk to him more.  Or are you saying say he did break a law, they would try to interview him more, even though they have enough evidence to arrest him, then walk away.  Only to return later to arrest him at a later date and time.

I mean, maybe they didn't have the right kind of car to hold a detainee, or maybe the "agent" who flashed a badge and a gun didn't have cuffs.  So you're right, maybe they had to go back to their HQ to get a different car and cuffs, then arrested the guy.

Some people refuse to see the obvious, simple conclusion when they can spend everyone's time debating why your reasoning isn't ironclad.

i walked into a bar, and the bartender was on the floor in a puddle of blood.  Standing over him was a deranged looking man with a knife stabbing him.

In EEF's world, the bartender could have been dead before the man stabbing him found him.  in the absence of contrary FACTS (not hypotheticals or guesses), I tend to go with a reasonable conclusion, not one that's simply argumentative.

What this guy did was absolutely legal, no question there but I would argue that he still could have handled it better which is why I wouldn't hold his example as that of a master. If I were driving in the road and someone cut me off abruptly I could swerve and brake quickly to avoid impact then give him the middle finger but it wouldn't be the best way to handle the situation.

If he had taken a different tone and tact he could have probably gotten more information from the agents (whoever they were) without inflaming the situation while still not providing any incriminating statements that could be used against him. There are many videos of individuals who calmly and respectfully decline to speak to officers when they don't have to without being confrontational like this guy who I would hold up as a masterclass type event over this guy.

A master is an expert.  The outcome was that he wasn't arrested (so far).  He also knows what his 1st amendment right is as he was mouthing off to the "agents".  Many people do not know what the 1st amendment is.  There are tons of police audit videos where the cops who take an oath about the Constitution violate the 1st amendment right of someone. I would call his knowledge of the matters as a "master".  Now had you said he didn't win the nice guy award or the calm guy mastery, then OK. He knew how far he could go with his rights and didn't exceed it.

Why would he need more info from the agents? Again, he wasn't arrested and they walked away so no laws broken, so he can keep doing what ever he's doing.

Some people refuse to see the obvious, simple conclusion when they can spend everyone's time debating why your reasoning isn't ironclad.

i walked into a bar, and the bartender was on the floor in a puddle of blood.  Standing over him was a deranged looking man still stabbing him.

In EEF's world, the bartender could have been dead before the man stabbing him found him.  I tend to go with a reasonable conclusion, not one that's simply argumentative.

Whataboutism would also argue that the deranged man was pulling the knife out, but dropped it so it went back into the bartender. Then he pulled it out again and it slipped again. So he had to pull it out a 3rd time.

#addingnuance

Some people refuse to see the obvious, simple conclusion when they can spend everyone's time debating why your reasoning isn't ironclad.

i walked into a bar, and the bartender was on the floor in a puddle of blood.  Standing over him was a deranged looking man with a knife stabbing him.

In EEF's world, the bartender could have been dead before the man stabbing him found him.  in the absence of contrary FACTS (not hypotheticals or guesses), I tend to go with a reasonable conclusion, not one that's simply argumentative.

I used to think you had problems with reading comprehension.  Now I see you just like to argue 100% of the time.

Instead of providing a lucid response, you start out  arguing over what i said.  That's again muddying the topic.

Every contractor who works for any law enforcement agency and might have the need to protect themselves is able to carry a gun.  A badge is also available on amazon for FBI Contractors.

You still didn't answer why they refused to show their credentials.

And this is obvious harassment, because the people asking questions left without any answers.  In a  criminal investigation, they would have the right to detain him for an investigation, take him to their office, and conduct the interview while recording it.  Didn't happen.

I never said the harassment started with the agents.  i said someone reported them to the FBI in order to harass him -- not much different that SWATTING someone.  Pure harassment, and the government lets themselves be used by people willing to file a report.

You accuse me of wanting to argue? I gave my opinion that this guy didn't handle the situation as well as he could have and you started chirping about what a masterclass really was.
You need to do some introspection and stop projecting.

It's called logic. Thanks for trying to dig your way out of the hole.

So with regard to this conversation, he broke no law. So no arrest.  Had he broken a law, the "agents" there would have arrested him and not tried to talk to him more.  Or are you saying say he did break a law, they would try to interview him more, even though they have enough evidence to arrest him, then walk away.  Only to return later to arrest him at a later date and time.

I mean, maybe they didn't have the right kind of car to hold a detainee, or maybe the "agent" who flashed a badge and a gun didn't have cuffs.  So you're right, maybe they had to go back to their HQ to get a different car and cuffs, then arrested the guy.

You make a claim based off your "logic" that isn't based in reality but your assumptions of how law enforcement works.

I am not saying anything about their true intent because I have no idea what they know or their reasoning. You however are claiming to know what is the truth while knowing nothing about their investigation beyond some relation to a social media post.

A master is an expert.  The outcome was that he wasn't arrested (so far).  He also knows what his 1st amendment right is as he was mouthing off to the "agents".  Many people do not know what the 1st amendment is.  There are tons of police audit videos where the cops who take an oath about the Constitution violate the 1st amendment right of someone. I would call his knowledge of the matters as a "master".  Now had you said he didn't win the nice guy award or the calm guy mastery, then OK. He knew how far he could go with his rights and didn't exceed it.

Why would he need more info from the agents? Again, he wasn't arrested and they walked away so no laws broken, so he can keep doing what ever he's doing.

Sure, he walked up to the line and knew where not to cross but he also was confrontational. Maybe this cop is a bad cop and vengeful. Maybe being polite would have caused the cop to move onto the next case but instead the cop comes back digging for something else. Even if the guy taking the video is in the right he still just created a headache for himself.

If I give you the middle finger because it is my legal freedom to do so and you punch me then I am hardly a master of anything. Sure I know my rights but I also have a bloody nose.

Why would he want more information? To see what the agents had on him. Or maybe just to find out why his social media post had gone this far. Had he really been such a master maybe he could have cleared it up for them allowing them to close the case but instead he just gave them ammo to put in their report that he was acting confrontationally. If someone really reported his post as a form of harassment then he might have been able to explain the situation if he were smart enough to establish a better rapport with the agents.

You make a claim based off your "logic" that isn't based in reality but your assumptions of how law enforcement works.

I am not saying anything about their true intent because I have no idea what they know or their reasoning. You however are claiming to know what is the truth while knowing nothing about their investigation beyond some relation to a social media post.

Re-read flapps post on the simple answer.  Or where the "agents" there to ask for directions cause they got lost?  That could be a possibility also right in your opinion.

You accuse me of wanting to argue? I gave my opinion that this guy didn't handle the situation as well as he could have and you started chirping about what a masterclass really was.
You need to do some introspection and stop projecting.

Wait.  Who started out by giving an opinion on this being a master class?

I wouldn't really call it a masterclass as he didn't improve the situation but he was good at exercising his rights. The agents weren't very good with their verbal judo either.

If calling you out for an opinion that's wrong based on the use of a term is chirping, then call me Jiminy.

 

Sure, he walked up to the line and knew where not to cross but he also was confrontational. Maybe this cop is a bad cop and vengeful. Maybe being polite would have caused the cop to move onto the next case but instead the cop comes back digging for something else. Even if the guy taking the video is in the right he still just created a headache for himself.

If I give you the middle finger because it is my legal freedom to do so and you punch me then I am hardly a master of anything. Sure I know my rights but I also have a bloody nose.

Why would he want more information? To see what the agents had on him. Or maybe just to find out why his social media post had gone this far. Had he really been such a master maybe he could have cleared it up for them allowing them to close the case but instead he just gave them ammo to put in their report that he was acting confrontationally. If someone really reported his post as a form of harassment then he might have been able to explain the situation if he were smart enough to establish a better rapport with the agents.

How did he create a headache for himself? He wasn't arrested and they left.  A headache would be if he was put in cuffs.  Maybe he took tylenol before this interaction. That's possible right?

Another poor example. U very well know that if someone punches you for giving them the finger, it's called assault.  And that unless the person doing the punching is part of the government, then aren't stopping you from exercising your 1st amendment as who the Bill of Rights is directed toward.. The 1A is so the government cannot censor you.  Individuals or private companies/orgs can do as they please for censorship, but not in the means of assault.  So bad example X2.

So your last paragraph is to talk to someone who might be LEO without an attorney present and risk the chance of incriminating oneself (5th amendment).  How is acting confrontationally more ammo?  Is that breaking the law?  if they were to hold a grudge as some cops tend to do when people know their rights, then he would have a good lawsuit if they came back to retaliate.

Re-read flapps post on the simple answer.  Or where the "agents" there to ask for directions cause they got lost?  That could be a possibility also right in your opinion.

EEF:  Master Contrarian

When the subject asked for credentials, and the people questioning him refused with a snarky "You can see our guns and badges" (or however they put it), the "agents" were provoking the subject, not the other way around -- and what the subject did was nowhere near giving them the bird -- a completely stupid analogy.

At that point, it's reasonable to ask them to vacate your property.  They might not receive it well, but to linger and keep asking questions isn't going to deescalate the situation.  It just shows a severe lack of respect for the subject's rights.

Cops are not talking to him to help him.  They are there to get him to admit whether he broke the law.  Period.

It's a fishing expedition, plain and simple.  Getting subjects/suspects to incriminate themselves is an age old tactic.  Best to exercise your rights and say nothing.

How did he create a headache for himself? He wasn't arrested and they left.  A headache would be if he was put in cuffs.  Maybe he took tylenol before this interaction. That's possible right?

Another poor example. U very well know that if someone punches you for giving them the finger, it's called assault.  And that unless the person doing the punching is part of the government, then aren't stopping you from exercising your 1st amendment as who the Bill of Rights is directed toward.. The 1A is so the government cannot censor you.  Individuals or private companies/orgs can do as they please for censorship, but not in the means of assault.  So bad example X2.

So your last paragraph is to talk to someone who might be LEO without an attorney present and risk the chance of incriminating oneself (5th amendment).  How is acting confrontationally more ammo?  Is that breaking the law?  if they were to hold a grudge as some cops tend to do when people know their rights, then he would have a good lawsuit if they came back to retaliate.

One citizen's exercise of their civil rights is another LEO's "confrontation."

How many videos are on YouTube where Cops are on camera threatening to arrest, or actually arresting, someone for "obstruction" simply by refusing to surrender their legal rights?

Way too many.  Cops don't like it when they give you an order (show me some ID), and are told "no," even though there's no law requiring an ID in that situation.

EEF = masterdebater...

EEF:  Master Contrarian

When the subject asked for credentials, and the people questioning him refused with a snarky "You can see our guns and badges" (or however they put it), the "agents" were provoking the subject, not the other way around -- and what the subject did was nowhere near giving them the bird -- a completely stupid analogy.

At that point, it's reasonable to ask them to vacate your property.  They might not receive it well, but to linger and keep asking questions isn't going to deescalate the situation.  It just shows a severe lack of respect for the subject's rights.

Cops are not talking to him to help him.  They are there to get him to admit whether he broke the law.  Period.

It's a fishing expedition, plain and simple.  Getting subjects/suspects to incriminate themselves is an age old tactic.  Best to exercise your rights and say nothing.