January 3, 2025 • 28 mins
The latest regarding NOLA terror attack and Las Vegas car bomb. LAPD stats show uptick in robberies, but was it really just shoplifting? Outing parents when applying for college financial aid. Members Only.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
It's the Bill Handles Show. He's back from vacation Monday.
Wayne Resnik here with you until nine o'clock. Then Gary
and Shannon are gonna come aboard, and we have some
new information in both the New Orleans terror attack and
(00:25):
the truck explosion in Las Vegas. And after I give
you a little update, we're gonna get into a very
uncomfortable aspect of both of these Both of these events,
as authorities have been searching for some connection between them,
there is one. It's not one that really is going
(00:46):
to be comfortable to talk about, though. But first some updates.
We now know that the active duty soldier who was
inside the Tesla cyber truck when it exploded in front
of Trumpeter National Hotel in Las Vegas had, by the way,
I guess, trigger warning alert whatever, there's some graphic things coming.
(01:12):
He three two one. He shot himself in the head
just before the explosion detonated. Seven people were injured with
minor injuries. There was virtually no damage to the building.
Now authorities think that this guy wanted a bigger attack,
(01:35):
of more damaging attack. But what happened is the steel
sides of the cyber truck took a lot of the blast,
and also most of the force of the explosion went up,
out and up, so it didn't go out horizontally so much.
It went up mostly vertically into the air. The doors
(01:56):
from the hotel were just a few feet away and
didn't theion didn't hit those doors. Now, there's a special
Agent in charge of ATF named Kenny Cooper said that
the level of sophistication is not what we would expect
from an individual with this type of military science experience.
(02:20):
Excuse me, So what I don't understand is is he
does he mean this was very sophisticated.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Or is he saying I would have thought a guy.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Who was a Green Beret and served and has five
Bronze stars.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Would have done a better job with it. I can't.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I can't clock where he's coming from on this because
it does not seem particularly sophisticated, and even seems like
he didn't think about whether a cyber truck would be
the right vehicle to use.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
I guess look, thank goodness for that. Now over to
New Orleans.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I mean, the big news is that after being very
convinced that multiple people were involved in planning and or
executing that attack, the government now is convinced that there
weren't and that the perpetrator there acted alone. He drove
to New Orleans, he made bombs in his rental home.
(03:27):
He put pipe bombs in ice chests along Bourbon Street.
He drove the rented electric Ford F one fifty pickup
truck into the crowd. He got out and shot at people,
and he was shot by police. And he did all
of that by himself, suggesting that since he since he
(03:49):
did not detonate the bombs before he drove the truck
through the crowd, the implication is his plan was to
drive through the crowd, get out, start shooting people and
they and detonate some pipe bombs on top of that.
And I guess he didn't realize that most police officers
are pretty good at taking down suspects. And there's also
(04:13):
some speculation that he chose to rent an electric vehicle
so that it would be quieter and he could in
essence sneak up on people more stealthily in that vehicle.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Now, this is the connection.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
There's an organization at the University of Maryland and it's
called START, which but START means the National Consortium for
the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. And they
have so much data about mass casualty offenders, mass shooters, bombers,
(04:57):
the whole thing. They have detailed information on almost every,
if not every mass casualty event.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Going back to at least nineteen ninety. The connection is
the military service.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
According to their data, the single if you're gonna pull
one data point out as the strongest predictor that someone
will carry out extremist violence. That one factor is military service,
(05:44):
more highly correlated than mental health issues. The number each
year of people with military backgrounds who commit extremist crimes
is going up. If you look at the period from
ninety to about twenty ten, it was averaging seven people
(06:07):
a year with military backgrounds did something like this, and
then it started going up, and now it's almost forty five,
forty three to forty five a year. In just the
last fourteen years, basically, there's been seven hundred and thirty
(06:31):
people with military backgrounds who committed crimes that were motivated
by the political beliefs or social beliefs or religious goals
that they had or economic goals that they had. Now
one of these events, I don't think this is skewing
the numbers in terms of how many or whether it's
(06:52):
a predictor or a risk factor. One of these is
the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in nineteen ninety five,
three hundred and fourteen deaths, almost two thousand injuries. But
the fact of the matter is, when you crunch these
numbers as they do, this is what stands out. To
(07:16):
try now on the fly to speculate as to what
that means would be foolish and would be an insult
to the fact that the overwhelming majority, the percentage that
is so close to one hundred percent that it's virtually
(07:37):
one hundred percent of people who have and do serve
in the military, never ever do or would do something
like this. But there's something there the combination of military
service and some there's something else, and you put them
together and you do get this this connection. Now, LAPD
(08:07):
stats show an increase in robberies in some parts of
the city. Okay, crime ebbs and flows, and we've certainly
been living with a mindset. I would say that there's
more retail theft going on, there's more shoplifting going on,
(08:29):
there's more people going into stores and grabbing stuff and
walking out and threatening security guards or pulling knives or
knocking them down or bumping into them or.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
What have you.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
And so the statistics are saying that in some parts
of the city those numbers are up, but others are saying,
ads is not really right, this is not really fair.
And the La Times has a big piece where they say, hey,
we looked at a lot of these incidents, and you
know a lot of them started as shoplifting. So I
(09:03):
guess the idea is that the LAPD is taking a
shoplifting case and then they're scoring it as a robbery.
And so why would they do that? What's their game?
Do they want to scare us? Do they want to
use higher robbery stats to get more funding or more
(09:27):
cops on the street or more equipment. And it doesn't
look like that's what's going on at all. And in fact,
even though it's a little it might be counterintuitive, but
it seems to be.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
The correct way to do it.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
I'm going to tell you why I'm on the side
of the LAPD here with reporting these incidents that they
do report as robberies reporting them as robberies, even if
they did begin as a shoplifting. So somebody picks up
some stuff in the store and they're starting to leave,
(10:09):
and at this point what happens next is largely in
the hands of the staff or the security at the store.
If they stand aside and let the person go, probably
nobody's going to be hurt, nobody's going to be threatened,
and you are not going to have anything that you
could possibly call a robbery. But if somebody decides to intervene,
(10:35):
it might be successful the person puts the stuff down,
but also it could.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Lead to a threat.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
It could lead to buffaloing through the person, you know,
the person who's stealing the stuff, kind of like bowls
over the security guard, punches, the security guard threat pulls
out a knife, says he has a knife when he
doesn't have another knife, and at that point, uh, it
(11:05):
becomes a robbery. Because robbery is loosely defined as using force, fear,
or intimidation to get property from somebody. It doesn't you know,
you don't have to have a gun, you don't have
to point a gun at a person, you don't have
to have a weapon that's why there's robbery, and separately,
(11:27):
there's armed robbery. Because some robberies don't have a weapon
and you don't have to touch anybody. There are certain
threats that are enough. And this all goes back to
a guy named Curtis Estes.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Way back in the day.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Curtis Estes tried to leave a Sears store in Vallejo.
He was wearing a down vest and a coat they
didn't pay for, and an armed security guard, you know,
stopped him in the parking lot. And this guy pulled
out a knife and said linealonar will kill you. And
then he did end up surrendering and he was convicted
(12:07):
of felony robbery. And then he appealed and said, you
can't convict me of robbery because and it wasn't about
the knife and the threat. His thing was, you can't
convict me of robbery because the guy I threatened it
wasn't his property. He's the security guards for Seers. He's
(12:27):
not the owner of the stuff I was trying to steal.
And the appeals Cauard said no, no, no, no, no.
You can be the victim of a robbery even if
you don't own the property that somebody's taken for you.
So cops will and DA's will often charge somebody with
robbery under this standard if it started as a shoplifting
(12:48):
but the person either threatened violence or became violence, or
used some kind of force or fear to try to
get away with the property. And then later on, you know,
secutor can look at it and say, let's knock this
down to a misdemeanor, or let's dismiss it. You can
handle these things after the charges have been filed. But
(13:11):
even when that happens, the LAPD is still going to
count it as a robbery because to them, it started
as a robbery. Now the accusation that perhaps the LAPD
wants to juke the robbery stats to get more money
or people, I don't think.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
I think it's the opposite.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
These stats, yes, they're used for funding requests and resource requests,
but they're also used to gauge the success of the
different stations and the leaders of those stations. If I
were a captain in LAPD, I would not want the
(13:51):
robbery numbers to go up. I would want them to
go down because that's the feather in my cap that
I need career wise, and I certainly wouldn't be looking
to screw around and say things are robberies when there's
no basis to say that they were robberies. The fact
of the matter is some shopliftings. It's not that some
(14:12):
shopliftings are being erroneously counted as robberies, which is what
I feel like the La Times article is trying to
get at. I think that's what they're trying to have
you come away with. I think it's that some shopliftings
turn into robberies because the shoplifter is aggressive and the
(14:36):
security guard decides to be aggressive. And I don't feel
like blaming the security guard in a situation like that.
So when people apply for financial aid to go to college,
they fill out a FAFSA, a Free Application for Federal
(14:59):
Student Aid, and it helps you calculate what you might
be eligible for. And you could get a PEL grant,
which is a help to go to college that you
don't have to pay back, or you could get a
student loan.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
There are other kinds of assistants that are available.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
And there was a problem already with this form where
they wanted to make it better, and they did make
it shorter for the twenty twenty three twenty twenty four
season financial aid season. But instead there were glitches, there
(15:38):
were data entry problems, there were delays. Everybody was frustrated,
and according to the Government Accountability Office, this debacle led
to a decline in first time college I'm sorry, in
first time submissions for financial aid to go to college
(15:58):
of nine percent, literally almost ten percent down because it
was too much of a pain in the keyster. It
looks like they've got most of that worked out, but
now there's a new problem. It doesn't have anything to
do with the form, and it doesn't have anything to
do with currently the Department of Education that administers this form.
(16:24):
It has to do with the fact that a new
administration is coming in for you. See, when you fill
out the FAFSA, one of the things that wants you
to put down are your parents' Social Security numbers. But
guess what, some parents of US citizen students are not
(16:49):
themselves legally here, so they may not have a Social
Security number. And now the fear of these kids who
just want to go to college is that if they
apply and they fill out this form, they will be
outing a parent as an undocumented person. Now it's not
(17:18):
they it shouldn't be that they're afraid because the Higher
Education Act absolutely prohibits the use of whatever you put
on this form for anything other than determining what you're
eligible for in financial assistance and awarding you that financial assistance.
(17:40):
So the law would say nobody from immigration should be
looking at this information. Nobody should ever know outside of
the Education Department, and even the people inside the Education Department,
they might see the form and they might clock that
I guess maybe this person since a parent is not
(18:01):
here legally, they would they're not allowed to do anything
about it, and that then the Department of Education recently
said that, oh, you know, we are gonna continue to
protect this, but we have a new administration coming in
and so we now can't really assure you that the
(18:23):
information won't be used for other things. It would be
breaking the law as it's currently written for it to happen.
But I don't think that anybody it would be surprised
to hear that some law breaking goes on in the
government sometimes. And because of the new administration, because of
(18:47):
the focus on illegal immigration, and because of the promises
of very very aggressive action about it, many people think
it's at least plausible that there will be some kind
of whether it's a formal executive order that the Department
of Education will now share these forms with I don't know,
(19:07):
Customs Enforcement, or whether it will be more of a
behind the scenes hey why don't you or whether I
don't know, ICE agents will show up at the Department
of Education and say, hey, do you mind if we
look at these forms that in some way this will
be used as a resource to identify people who may
be deportable, which, you know, there's two things going on here,
(19:31):
because let's say we have we have a person who
is here unlawfully, and we have their child who is
here lawfully. So now we have a situation where one
person may face a bad consequence, but it's something that
(19:51):
comes with the territory.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
If you're here.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Unlawfully, you really are not generally in entitled to avoid scrutiny.
So you have someone who might get dinged, the parent,
and then there's an argument that well, they knew all along.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
That at some point they could be dinged.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
There's any number of other ways that the authorities could
become aware of the situation, or maybe they're aware of
it and a current administration doesn't feel like doing anything
about it. But that doesn't entitle you to get the
same treatment from a new administration.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
So that's one thing.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
And then you have somebody, the child, who absolutely doesn't
deserve to be hurt this way. They clearly didn't do
anything wrong, and here they are now and they may
not be able to go to college because they're too
afraid to ask for financial help that they could get.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
So I don't have an answer for you.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
I don't have one except we have to figure out
a way to not let bad things happen to the
people who in no way deserve them, who in no
way did anything to make those bad things a possibility.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
That's my thought. Members gets you don't need no money
to qualify. Don't bring your check making you're broken.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Christ to kf I am six forty live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app. It's the Bill Handle Show. He's back
on Monday. Wayne Resnik here and it is.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Time for members only.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
A series of news stories connected by a by a
factor near and dear to men and the people who
love them. And uh, I don't know if you heard
about this, but there was a big fracas. Be quiet, serie.
I didn't call for you. There was a big fracas
(22:13):
at Mister Chow restaurant. Mister Chow is a Chinese restaurant
Beverly Hills. I've never been here.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
That is way way way, way, way way way.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Out of my league, but a lot of celebrities go
to Mister Chow. And one night, right before the holiday
season began, or as it began, Jamie Fox was having
a birthday dinner at Mister Chow and up in the
VIP area that had been rented out by the production
(22:41):
company that makes the Jackass movies and TV show, and
they sent a drink down to Jamie Fox for his
birthday and he didn't drink it because he apparently stopped drinking.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
But in any event, shortly.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
After that, the people up there were like, hey, hey, hey,
and somebody the table said hey, they're saying hello to you,
and he looks up and they're all laughing up there.
And at this point I'm relating to you Jamie Fox's
side of the story, which is heavily denied by the
Jackass people and their attorney. So just that's how I'm
(23:17):
presenting it. This is what Jamie Fox says, why are
they laughing? And then he realizes that somebody has a
laser pointer and is projecting a penis on Jamie Fox's
table at mister Chow, I didn't know such things existed,
but I.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Guess they do.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
And his family was there and he did not like
that one little bit, and apparently he went upstairs and
there was a big, tense confrontation. And that's what Jamie
Fox says. But an attorney representing the Jackass Fellas says
that his version of events is very, very wrong and
inaccurate and unfair. So who knows what really happened except
(24:02):
I don't see anybody denying that they did project a
laser penis onto Jamie Fox's birthday dinner table. So that's
just people saying this is what I say happen to me.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
That's not science of any kind. Here is science.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Here's a study that is the opposite of what some
people thought. From nineteen forty two until twenty twenty one,
that time period, researchers looked at over fifty five thousand
men from all over the world, all ages, who took
(24:43):
part in a study where their penis size was measured
both at rest and I guess battle ready because they
wanted to see how this has changed over the last
thirty years, whatever it's been now A lot of experts,
(25:04):
including this guy up at Stanford Medicine, he's a professor
of urology. He said, well, what they're gonna find out
is it's gotten smaller because we've seen, for example, declines
in sperm count with men. We know there's more environmental
exposure to chemicals, pesticides, even hygiene products now have things
(25:25):
in them that affect our hormone systems, and there's endocrine
disrupting chemicals, and so the bottom line is, you know,
men have less sperm, and I assume the thing is
getting smaller.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
But the results are the opposite once you.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Adjust for geographic region and age and the total subject population.
This study found that battle ready length has gone up
twenty four percent in the last twenty nine years, the
twenty nine years covered by the study, which seems amazing,
(26:09):
which seems like happy news to go up from an average.
By the way, and men, I'm gonna tell you this
because I'm telling you never ever ever be worried or nervous,
or or or feel inadequate, because we are talking about
average battle ready size increasing from four point eight inches
(26:35):
to six.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
So you're fine. I promise you're fine.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
But it's not happy news because all of the experts
are saying, well, even if it's the opposite result of
what we thought, it's still for the same reasons. We
still say this is happening because of all the chemical
exposure and the impacts on reproductive health. And maybe this
(27:06):
is me now jumping off from the study and wondering if,
from an evolutionary standpoint, if you become less fertile, does
the body try to compensate for that by increasing the
size of the delivery system, even though I don't see
how that would actually help. And also, thirty years is
(27:27):
a very short time for an evolutionary effect to take place.
But anyway, that's what they found. And now I leave
you with this. Be happy that you are not. Be
happy that you're not a super hot male porn star. Yes,
they make a lot of money. Josh Moore is one
(27:47):
of them. He's one of the leading male performers in
the adult entertainment industry. And he makes like five hundred
thousand dollars a year on only fans, and he jet
said around the world, and he lives in a fancy
house and you may be like man, that would be
the life, except he has to pay five hundred dollars
(28:10):
a month for insurance for you know what, Chefs have
life insurance. Actors often ensure their faces. There's been some
celebrities who were famous for their legs, for example, that
had million dollar insurance policies on their legs. And if
you work in the adult industry, you know what you.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Need to ensure.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
He knows it. He needs to five hundred bucks a month.
It's KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
It's the Bill Handles Show. He's back from vacation Monday.
Wayne Resnik here with you until nine o'clock. Then Gary
and Shannon are gonna come aboard, and we have some
new information in both the New Orleans terror attack and
(00:25):
the truck explosion in Las Vegas. And after I give
you a little update, we're gonna get into a very
uncomfortable aspect of both of these Both of these events,
as authorities have been searching for some connection between them,
there is one. It's not one that really is going
(00:46):
to be comfortable to talk about, though. But first some updates.
We now know that the active duty soldier who was
inside the Tesla cyber truck when it exploded in front
of Trumpeter National Hotel in Las Vegas had, by the way,
I guess, trigger warning alert whatever, there's some graphic things coming.
(01:12):
He three two one. He shot himself in the head
just before the explosion detonated. Seven people were injured with
minor injuries. There was virtually no damage to the building.
Now authorities think that this guy wanted a bigger attack,
(01:35):
of more damaging attack. But what happened is the steel
sides of the cyber truck took a lot of the blast,
and also most of the force of the explosion went up,
out and up, so it didn't go out horizontally so much.
It went up mostly vertically into the air. The doors
(01:56):
from the hotel were just a few feet away and
didn't theion didn't hit those doors. Now, there's a special
Agent in charge of ATF named Kenny Cooper said that
the level of sophistication is not what we would expect
from an individual with this type of military science experience.
(02:20):
Excuse me, So what I don't understand is is he
does he mean this was very sophisticated.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Or is he saying I would have thought a guy.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Who was a Green Beret and served and has five
Bronze stars.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Would have done a better job with it. I can't.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
I can't clock where he's coming from on this because
it does not seem particularly sophisticated, and even seems like
he didn't think about whether a cyber truck would be
the right vehicle to use.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
I guess look, thank goodness for that. Now over to
New Orleans.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I mean, the big news is that after being very
convinced that multiple people were involved in planning and or
executing that attack, the government now is convinced that there
weren't and that the perpetrator there acted alone. He drove
to New Orleans, he made bombs in his rental home.
(03:27):
He put pipe bombs in ice chests along Bourbon Street.
He drove the rented electric Ford F one fifty pickup
truck into the crowd. He got out and shot at people,
and he was shot by police. And he did all
of that by himself, suggesting that since he since he
(03:49):
did not detonate the bombs before he drove the truck
through the crowd, the implication is his plan was to
drive through the crowd, get out, start shooting people and
they and detonate some pipe bombs on top of that.
And I guess he didn't realize that most police officers
are pretty good at taking down suspects. And there's also
(04:13):
some speculation that he chose to rent an electric vehicle
so that it would be quieter and he could in
essence sneak up on people more stealthily in that vehicle.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Now, this is the connection.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
There's an organization at the University of Maryland and it's
called START, which but START means the National Consortium for
the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. And they
have so much data about mass casualty offenders, mass shooters, bombers,
(04:57):
the whole thing. They have detailed information on almost every,
if not every mass casualty event.
Speaker 1 (05:10):
Going back to at least nineteen ninety. The connection is
the military service.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
According to their data, the single if you're gonna pull
one data point out as the strongest predictor that someone
will carry out extremist violence. That one factor is military service,
(05:44):
more highly correlated than mental health issues. The number each
year of people with military backgrounds who commit extremist crimes
is going up. If you look at the period from
ninety to about twenty ten, it was averaging seven people
(06:07):
a year with military backgrounds did something like this, and
then it started going up, and now it's almost forty five,
forty three to forty five a year. In just the
last fourteen years, basically, there's been seven hundred and thirty
(06:31):
people with military backgrounds who committed crimes that were motivated
by the political beliefs or social beliefs or religious goals
that they had or economic goals that they had. Now
one of these events, I don't think this is skewing
the numbers in terms of how many or whether it's
(06:52):
a predictor or a risk factor. One of these is
the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in nineteen ninety five,
three hundred and fourteen deaths, almost two thousand injuries. But
the fact of the matter is, when you crunch these
numbers as they do, this is what stands out. To
(07:16):
try now on the fly to speculate as to what
that means would be foolish and would be an insult
to the fact that the overwhelming majority, the percentage that
is so close to one hundred percent that it's virtually
(07:37):
one hundred percent of people who have and do serve
in the military, never ever do or would do something
like this. But there's something there the combination of military
service and some there's something else, and you put them
together and you do get this this connection. Now, LAPD
(08:07):
stats show an increase in robberies in some parts of
the city. Okay, crime ebbs and flows, and we've certainly
been living with a mindset. I would say that there's
more retail theft going on, there's more shoplifting going on,
(08:29):
there's more people going into stores and grabbing stuff and
walking out and threatening security guards or pulling knives or
knocking them down or bumping into them or.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
What have you.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
And so the statistics are saying that in some parts
of the city those numbers are up, but others are saying,
ads is not really right, this is not really fair.
And the La Times has a big piece where they say, hey,
we looked at a lot of these incidents, and you
know a lot of them started as shoplifting. So I
(09:03):
guess the idea is that the LAPD is taking a
shoplifting case and then they're scoring it as a robbery.
And so why would they do that? What's their game?
Do they want to scare us? Do they want to
use higher robbery stats to get more funding or more
(09:27):
cops on the street or more equipment. And it doesn't
look like that's what's going on at all. And in fact,
even though it's a little it might be counterintuitive, but
it seems to be.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
The correct way to do it.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
I'm going to tell you why I'm on the side
of the LAPD here with reporting these incidents that they
do report as robberies reporting them as robberies, even if
they did begin as a shoplifting. So somebody picks up
some stuff in the store and they're starting to leave,
(10:09):
and at this point what happens next is largely in
the hands of the staff or the security at the store.
If they stand aside and let the person go, probably
nobody's going to be hurt, nobody's going to be threatened,
and you are not going to have anything that you
could possibly call a robbery. But if somebody decides to intervene,
(10:35):
it might be successful the person puts the stuff down,
but also it could.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Lead to a threat.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
It could lead to buffaloing through the person, you know,
the person who's stealing the stuff, kind of like bowls
over the security guard, punches, the security guard threat pulls
out a knife, says he has a knife when he
doesn't have another knife, and at that point, uh, it
(11:05):
becomes a robbery. Because robbery is loosely defined as using force, fear,
or intimidation to get property from somebody. It doesn't you know,
you don't have to have a gun, you don't have
to point a gun at a person, you don't have
to have a weapon that's why there's robbery, and separately,
(11:27):
there's armed robbery. Because some robberies don't have a weapon
and you don't have to touch anybody. There are certain
threats that are enough. And this all goes back to
a guy named Curtis Estes.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Way back in the day.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Curtis Estes tried to leave a Sears store in Vallejo.
He was wearing a down vest and a coat they
didn't pay for, and an armed security guard, you know,
stopped him in the parking lot. And this guy pulled
out a knife and said linealonar will kill you. And
then he did end up surrendering and he was convicted
(12:07):
of felony robbery. And then he appealed and said, you
can't convict me of robbery because and it wasn't about
the knife and the threat. His thing was, you can't
convict me of robbery because the guy I threatened it
wasn't his property. He's the security guards for Seers. He's
(12:27):
not the owner of the stuff I was trying to steal.
And the appeals Cauard said no, no, no, no, no.
You can be the victim of a robbery even if
you don't own the property that somebody's taken for you.
So cops will and DA's will often charge somebody with
robbery under this standard if it started as a shoplifting
(12:48):
but the person either threatened violence or became violence, or
used some kind of force or fear to try to
get away with the property. And then later on, you know,
secutor can look at it and say, let's knock this
down to a misdemeanor, or let's dismiss it. You can
handle these things after the charges have been filed. But
(13:11):
even when that happens, the LAPD is still going to
count it as a robbery because to them, it started
as a robbery. Now the accusation that perhaps the LAPD
wants to juke the robbery stats to get more money
or people, I don't think.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
I think it's the opposite.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
These stats, yes, they're used for funding requests and resource requests,
but they're also used to gauge the success of the
different stations and the leaders of those stations. If I
were a captain in LAPD, I would not want the
(13:51):
robbery numbers to go up. I would want them to
go down because that's the feather in my cap that
I need career wise, and I certainly wouldn't be looking
to screw around and say things are robberies when there's
no basis to say that they were robberies. The fact
of the matter is some shopliftings. It's not that some
(14:12):
shopliftings are being erroneously counted as robberies, which is what
I feel like the La Times article is trying to
get at. I think that's what they're trying to have
you come away with. I think it's that some shopliftings
turn into robberies because the shoplifter is aggressive and the
(14:36):
security guard decides to be aggressive. And I don't feel
like blaming the security guard in a situation like that.
So when people apply for financial aid to go to college,
they fill out a FAFSA, a Free Application for Federal
(14:59):
Student Aid, and it helps you calculate what you might
be eligible for. And you could get a PEL grant,
which is a help to go to college that you
don't have to pay back, or you could get a
student loan.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
There are other kinds of assistants that are available.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
And there was a problem already with this form where
they wanted to make it better, and they did make
it shorter for the twenty twenty three twenty twenty four
season financial aid season. But instead there were glitches, there
(15:38):
were data entry problems, there were delays. Everybody was frustrated,
and according to the Government Accountability Office, this debacle led
to a decline in first time college I'm sorry, in
first time submissions for financial aid to go to college
(15:58):
of nine percent, literally almost ten percent down because it
was too much of a pain in the keyster. It
looks like they've got most of that worked out, but
now there's a new problem. It doesn't have anything to
do with the form, and it doesn't have anything to
do with currently the Department of Education that administers this form.
(16:24):
It has to do with the fact that a new
administration is coming in for you. See, when you fill
out the FAFSA, one of the things that wants you
to put down are your parents' Social Security numbers. But
guess what, some parents of US citizen students are not
(16:49):
themselves legally here, so they may not have a Social
Security number. And now the fear of these kids who
just want to go to college is that if they
apply and they fill out this form, they will be
outing a parent as an undocumented person. Now it's not
(17:18):
they it shouldn't be that they're afraid because the Higher
Education Act absolutely prohibits the use of whatever you put
on this form for anything other than determining what you're
eligible for in financial assistance and awarding you that financial assistance.
(17:40):
So the law would say nobody from immigration should be
looking at this information. Nobody should ever know outside of
the Education Department, and even the people inside the Education Department,
they might see the form and they might clock that
I guess maybe this person since a parent is not
(18:01):
here legally, they would they're not allowed to do anything
about it, and that then the Department of Education recently
said that, oh, you know, we are gonna continue to
protect this, but we have a new administration coming in
and so we now can't really assure you that the
(18:23):
information won't be used for other things. It would be
breaking the law as it's currently written for it to happen.
But I don't think that anybody it would be surprised
to hear that some law breaking goes on in the
government sometimes. And because of the new administration, because of
(18:47):
the focus on illegal immigration, and because of the promises
of very very aggressive action about it, many people think
it's at least plausible that there will be some kind
of whether it's a formal executive order that the Department
of Education will now share these forms with I don't know,
(19:07):
Customs Enforcement, or whether it will be more of a
behind the scenes hey why don't you or whether I
don't know, ICE agents will show up at the Department
of Education and say, hey, do you mind if we
look at these forms that in some way this will
be used as a resource to identify people who may
be deportable, which, you know, there's two things going on here,
(19:31):
because let's say we have we have a person who
is here unlawfully, and we have their child who is
here lawfully. So now we have a situation where one
person may face a bad consequence, but it's something that
(19:51):
comes with the territory.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
If you're here.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
Unlawfully, you really are not generally in entitled to avoid scrutiny.
So you have someone who might get dinged, the parent,
and then there's an argument that well, they knew all along.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
That at some point they could be dinged.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
There's any number of other ways that the authorities could
become aware of the situation, or maybe they're aware of
it and a current administration doesn't feel like doing anything
about it. But that doesn't entitle you to get the
same treatment from a new administration.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
So that's one thing.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
And then you have somebody, the child, who absolutely doesn't
deserve to be hurt this way. They clearly didn't do
anything wrong, and here they are now and they may
not be able to go to college because they're too
afraid to ask for financial help that they could get.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
So I don't have an answer for you.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
I don't have one except we have to figure out
a way to not let bad things happen to the
people who in no way deserve them, who in no
way did anything to make those bad things a possibility.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
That's my thought. Members gets you don't need no money
to qualify. Don't bring your check making you're broken.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Christ to kf I am six forty live everywhere on
the iHeartRadio app. It's the Bill Handle Show. He's back
on Monday. Wayne Resnik here and it is.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
Time for members only.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
A series of news stories connected by a by a
factor near and dear to men and the people who
love them. And uh, I don't know if you heard
about this, but there was a big fracas. Be quiet, serie.
I didn't call for you. There was a big fracas
(22:13):
at Mister Chow restaurant. Mister Chow is a Chinese restaurant
Beverly Hills. I've never been here.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
That is way way way, way, way way way.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Out of my league, but a lot of celebrities go
to Mister Chow. And one night, right before the holiday
season began, or as it began, Jamie Fox was having
a birthday dinner at Mister Chow and up in the
VIP area that had been rented out by the production
(22:41):
company that makes the Jackass movies and TV show, and
they sent a drink down to Jamie Fox for his
birthday and he didn't drink it because he apparently stopped drinking.
Speaker 1 (22:53):
But in any event, shortly.
Speaker 2 (22:55):
After that, the people up there were like, hey, hey, hey,
and somebody the table said hey, they're saying hello to you,
and he looks up and they're all laughing up there.
And at this point I'm relating to you Jamie Fox's
side of the story, which is heavily denied by the
Jackass people and their attorney. So just that's how I'm
(23:17):
presenting it. This is what Jamie Fox says, why are
they laughing? And then he realizes that somebody has a
laser pointer and is projecting a penis on Jamie Fox's
table at mister Chow, I didn't know such things existed,
but I.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Guess they do.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
And his family was there and he did not like
that one little bit, and apparently he went upstairs and
there was a big, tense confrontation. And that's what Jamie
Fox says. But an attorney representing the Jackass Fellas says
that his version of events is very, very wrong and
inaccurate and unfair. So who knows what really happened except
(24:02):
I don't see anybody denying that they did project a
laser penis onto Jamie Fox's birthday dinner table. So that's
just people saying this is what I say happen to me.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
That's not science of any kind. Here is science.
Speaker 2 (24:21):
Here's a study that is the opposite of what some
people thought. From nineteen forty two until twenty twenty one,
that time period, researchers looked at over fifty five thousand
men from all over the world, all ages, who took
(24:43):
part in a study where their penis size was measured
both at rest and I guess battle ready because they
wanted to see how this has changed over the last
thirty years, whatever it's been now A lot of experts,
(25:04):
including this guy up at Stanford Medicine, he's a professor
of urology. He said, well, what they're gonna find out
is it's gotten smaller because we've seen, for example, declines
in sperm count with men. We know there's more environmental
exposure to chemicals, pesticides, even hygiene products now have things
(25:25):
in them that affect our hormone systems, and there's endocrine
disrupting chemicals, and so the bottom line is, you know,
men have less sperm, and I assume the thing is
getting smaller.
Speaker 1 (25:39):
But the results are the opposite once you.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
Adjust for geographic region and age and the total subject population.
This study found that battle ready length has gone up
twenty four percent in the last twenty nine years, the
twenty nine years covered by the study, which seems amazing,
(26:09):
which seems like happy news to go up from an average.
By the way, and men, I'm gonna tell you this
because I'm telling you never ever ever be worried or nervous,
or or or feel inadequate, because we are talking about
average battle ready size increasing from four point eight inches
(26:35):
to six.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
So you're fine. I promise you're fine.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
But it's not happy news because all of the experts
are saying, well, even if it's the opposite result of
what we thought, it's still for the same reasons. We
still say this is happening because of all the chemical
exposure and the impacts on reproductive health. And maybe this
(27:06):
is me now jumping off from the study and wondering if,
from an evolutionary standpoint, if you become less fertile, does
the body try to compensate for that by increasing the
size of the delivery system, even though I don't see
how that would actually help. And also, thirty years is
(27:27):
a very short time for an evolutionary effect to take place.
But anyway, that's what they found. And now I leave
you with this. Be happy that you are not. Be
happy that you're not a super hot male porn star. Yes,
they make a lot of money. Josh Moore is one
(27:47):
of them. He's one of the leading male performers in
the adult entertainment industry. And he makes like five hundred
thousand dollars a year on only fans, and he jet
said around the world, and he lives in a fancy
house and you may be like man, that would be
the life, except he has to pay five hundred dollars
(28:10):
a month for insurance for you know what, Chefs have
life insurance. Actors often ensure their faces. There's been some
celebrities who were famous for their legs, for example, that
had million dollar insurance policies on their legs. And if
you work in the adult industry, you know what you.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Need to ensure.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
He knows it. He needs to five hundred bucks a month.
It's KFI AM six forty live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
You've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com