Posted by Anne, California on April 8, 2010:

All that for a Filet-o-Fish? I mean, maybe for a Big Mac, but not the fish sandwich.

Posted by Anthony, Huntsville AL on April 8, 2010:

Just how good could a Filet-o-Fish be at 4:30 in the morning? Everyone knows that you go to White Castle for sliders on the way home from the club!

I always thought "Security Cameras" were to increase security and record criminals. What planet is Brock Meek from?

Posted by Jim in southwest Illannoy on April 8, 2010:

Now that's a serious case of the munchies.

Posted by Ray from Pennsylvania on April 8, 2010:

What does Mr. Meek object to? Safety from criminals? Say it with me - slowly so Mr Meek can understand - "security camera."

Posted by Kris from Ogden, UT on April 9, 2010:

I agree with Ray from Philly - the purpose of these cameras is specifically to aid law enforcement in solving crimes committed on the property where the cameras are located. That's like complaining about police (fire departments, ambulances) using their emergency lights and sirens to bypass traffic.

Posted by Joan, Henderson, NV on April 9, 2010:

Let's see, a security camera caught a crime on private premises, and law enforcement is misusing it for their own ends? Would Mr. Meek feel better if there were a multitude of eyewitnesses? What about a cellphone camera picture? Is that okay, or is it an invasion of privacy?

It reminds of what happened a number of years ago when New York State wanted to take DNA samples from men arrested for sexual assault. There were protests of invasion of privacy, civil right violations, etc. Never mind that this would help solve crimes -- and has.

Posted by Neil, Cheshire, UK on April 10, 2010:

Hmm. Meek says that police are, by using surveillance footage, acting "to stand it on its head for law enforcement benefits". Would that be in the sense of actually using the footage rather than frightening people by the threat of it?

Then again, it's surprising how many people would have agreed with him had it been on public property...

Posted by Martin, San Pablo, CA on April 13, 2010:

I don't have any issue with surveillance cameras of the sort involved in this story.

I do have an issue with complacent and racist readers of this story who found nothing wrong with the title on the video: "Angry Black Guy at McDonalds". Did it enter their complacent, petty bourgeois, arrogant and entitled-feeling minds that if the guy were white, it is astronomically unlikely the title would have read "Angry White Guy at McDOnalds"?

Show me where in all of this "Mug Shots" feature, Randy, you have a comparable expression for a "white" offender. Eh?

---

Yes, I noticed the title too. You clearly assume I would put such a title on there. That is offensive, too -- that you assume I had anything to do with the video or its title. I did not, and had you spent any trouble checking on that, you would have realized it. -rc

Posted by Bob in Illinois on April 13, 2010:

I’m going to guess like most people I never even saw the title of the video until it was pointed out by Martin, San Pablo, CA. But then I don’t think everybody and everything is about race either, maybe it’s because I’m not a raciest and not looking for every chance to call someone else one. I agree it is not needed to include the word ‘black’ in the description to get the point across. But it also does not mean that whoever placed the title on the video is a raciest either. I was always told that ‘before you make an accusation make sure you are without fault.’

Posted by Neil, Cheshire, UK on April 13, 2010:

I noticed the video title and thought it was a little out of line, but nothing to get worked up over.

And no, "Angry White Guy at McDonalds" (correctly capitalized) wouldn't have surprised me in the slightest.