Unmasking Intent

Send us a text

This week we are “unmasking” a landmark case from New York that challenges our views on policing, legislation, and the balance between security and civil liberties. During the episode we explore the arrest of an 18-year-old under a new mask ban law, delving into the legal and social implications of this contentious issue and how this legislation provides the police with a new method for establishing reasonable suspicion, and what it means for our rights and protections under the Constitution.
 
 Our discussion dives into the intricate nuances of law enforcement discretion around mask-wearing. We illustrate how behaviors like "urban masking" and "social camouflage" can influence police decisions, and why clear guidelines are crucial to avoid arbitrary enforcement. By examining historical context and the modern-day application of mask laws, we shed light on the challenges officers face when navigating the fine line between letter-of-the-law enforcement and the spirit-of-the-law discretion. We also highlight the importance of contextual cues and the totality of circumstances in making stops or arrests.
 
 Our conversation emphasizes the necessity of balancing public safety with personal freedoms, and the critical role of intent in law enforcement decisions. From behavioral analysis to the emotional drivers behind legislation, this episode provides an engaging and thought-provoking discussion that challenges conventional wisdom and offers new insights into the intersection of law, safety, and individual rights.

Thank you so much for tuning in, we hope you enjoy the episode and please check out our Patreon channel where we have a lot more content, as well as subscriber only episodes of the show. If you enjoy the podcast, I would kindly ask that you leave us a review and more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don’t forget that Training Changes Behavior!

News Article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/28/arrest-nassau-county-face-mask-ban

Support the show

Website: https://thehumanbehaviorpodcast.buzzsprout.com/share

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheHumanBehaviorPodcast

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thehumanbehaviorpodcast/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ArcadiaCognerati

More about Greg and Brian: https://arcadiacognerati.com/arcadia-cognerati-leadership-team/

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everyone and welcome to the Human Behavior
Podcast.
This week we are unmasking alandmark case from New York that
challenges our views onpolicing legislation and the
balance between security andcivil liberties.
During the episode, we exploredthe arrest of an 18-year-old
under new mask ban law, doublingin the legal and social
implications of this contentiousissue and how this legislation
provides the police with a newmethod for establishing

(00:22):
reasonable suspicion and what itmeans for our rights and
protections under theConstitution.
Our discussion dives into theintricate nuances of law
enforcement discretion aroundmask wearing.
We illustrate how behaviorslike urban masking and social
camouflage can influence policedecisions and why clear
guidelines are crucial to avoidarbitrary enforcement.
By examining historical contextand the modern-day application

(00:44):
of mask laws, we shed light onthe challenges officers face
when navigating the fine linebetween letter of the law
enforcement and the spirit ofthe law discretion.
We also highlight theimportance of contextual cues
and the totality of thecircumstances in making stops or
arrests.
Our conversation emphasizes thenecessity of balancing public
safety with personal freedomsand the critical role of intent

(01:04):
in law enforcement decisions,from behavioral analysis to the
emotional drivers behindlegislation.
This episode provides anengaging and thought-provoking
discussion that challengesconventional wisdom and offers
new insights into theintersection of law, safety and
individual rights.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
We hope you enjoyed the episodeand please check out our
Patreon channel, where we have alot more content as well as

(01:26):
subscriber only episodes of theshow.
If you enjoy the podcast, I'dkindly ask that you leave this
review and, more importantly,please share it with a friend.
Thank you for your time anddon't forget that training
changes behavior.
Hello everyone and welcome tothe human behavior podcast.
Well, I almost almost messed upmy intro here, greg.
Welcome to you.
Greg Got a new little setup,little audio setup for myself,

(01:49):
so hopefully it sounds a littlebit better.
Thank you to those who havereached out with feedback.
I actually very much appreciateit because when I was going
through this and the way Ilistened to the podcast was
coming through my computer and Ididn't always listen to it
through headphones, so I didn'trealize that there were some
audio issues.
So for those of you did reachout and say something, thank you
so much.
Any feedback we get fromeveryone is always very much

(02:15):
welcome.
So today, what we're going to betalking about is a case out of
the East Coast, from New York,where someone is.
You know, the suburban New Yorkpolice make first arrests under
new law banning face masks.
So I'll put the link in the inthe episode details.
But I do want to hit some ofthis because there's a lot we
can talk about here within thiscase and actually even the way
it's written.
There's a lot we can talk about.
But so this is literally justhappened, I think over the last

(02:37):
weekend.
But the police responded to acall of a suspicious person.
Police responded to a call of asuspicious person.
So they go up, they detain thisman because he's wearing black
clothing and a black ski maskthat covered his face except for
his eyes.
So like old school, like 1980s,like movie face, like criminal

(02:57):
bad guy, like literally blackface mask with only holes for
the eyes.
Oh, I remember of what's that,boondock Saints, where they're
like you know he's got the guycan't get his mask right.
But so he important part of thestory.
The department said the 18 yearold displayed other suspicious
behavior, including attemptingto conceal a large bulge in his
waistband and refusing to complywith officer's command.

(03:17):
So that's actually a veryimportant part of the story too.
So the officers say the bulgeturned out to be a 14 inch knife
and he was placed under arrestwithout further incident.
He was arraigned Monday, um, oncharges of criminal possession
of a weapon and obstructinggovernmental administration.
And, but you know the the he'salso going to face a misty meter

(03:38):
violation of the face mask lawin the coming days.
They said so they haven't, Iguess, charged them with it yet.
They're going to figure out howto charge them with it.
But they said, you know, andpeople signed this mask ban into
law are saying, hey, this ruleis working.
But what they're saying is youknow, our police officers were
able to use the mask banlegislation as well, as well as
other factors which is a veryimportant statement to stop and

(04:01):
interrogate an individual who iscarrying a weapon with the
intent to engage in robbery.
Um, so it.
And what he's saying is thislaw gave police another tool to
stop this dangerous criminal.
Of course, uh, now he's gotsome some representation.
Um, you know the police aresaying you know the law was.
And administrators, uh, youknow the different elected
officials saying the law givespolice the very least reasonable

(04:22):
suspicion to conduct a stop.
And then, um, let me see, makesure I got everything, then they
can forcibly stop someone innew york state if they're
suspected of committing a felonyor penal law misdemeanor, which
is where this new law falls,all important parts.
And then you know um, the legalaid society is representing this
guy said there's no basis tobelieve that wearing a face mask

(04:43):
was intended to concealidentity or criminal behavior
and if that was the base of thestop.
Guy said there's no basis tobelieve that wearing a face mask
was intended to concealidentity or criminal behavior
and if that was the base of thestop, I believe there's basis to
conclude the stop was unlawful.
So this is kind of the bigparts of the case and there's
there's a lot we can get intohere.
Greg.
I'll throw to you before I getinto anything.
But all of these points areimportant.
The face mask law isinteresting to me, are important

(05:06):
.
The face mask law isinteresting to me.
I guess these police officesare going to be quite busy
coming up the end of Octoberruining Halloween celebrations
if it's a mask law violation.
But first let's start this.
Why are we going over this casewith the listeners?

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Yeah.
So there's two sides to thecaper the side that says this is
yet another ploy, an end run, areach around for the
Constitution, and then the otherones that say no, it makes
absolute sense.
So there's historicalpreference.
First, for anybody that justcrawled out of a cave, probable
cause is the minimum legalstandard to apply for a search

(05:41):
warrant or an arrest warrant.
And probable cause means that,based on what you're seeing,
experience or perceiving, thatanother random, reasonable
person observing those samefactors would also believe that
a crime has been committed, wasgoing to be committed or was in
progress.
So now that we know that, okay,you gave us facts on both sides
, both arguments.

(06:02):
But you said they had an RP, areporting party, the coppers.
They observed a person in thedark wearing dark clothes in a
high crime area that was wasteaware.
Do you see what I'm trying?
to say those things are calledprobable cause.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
Those are artifacts and evidence to support probable
cause yeah, or at leastreasonable suspicion, at least.

Speaker 2 (06:24):
Right, but I think that the group of them together
and then wearing a mask wasplenty for them to go up and do
a contact, and a contact is astreet interview.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
Oh, absolutely yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
So an interrogation again and I'm just bashing on
the people that write articles.
An interrogation means custodyapplied, that the person is in
custody and he's not free toleave.
And now you're asking pointedquestions about why were you
there?
What was it?
The street interview is hey,what's up?
And the guy is not followingcommands and they see that he's
waste of wear and they pat himdown, which they have the

(06:58):
absolute right to, and he's gota weapon.
So that's plenty Now.
So that's plenty.
Now, where did mask laws comefrom?
It wasn't COVID and most peopleyou know we joked Brian many
times about.
You'll never be able to usethat as probable cause again,
and I still believe it's right,those masks were around when
stagecoach robbers were around.
Those laws were around when KuKlux Klan was attacking and

(07:23):
lynching people.
Those laws have perfectprecedence historical, when
you're talking about a riot orinsurrection, or in the
performance of a crime.
I think it should be added thereyeah, but saying that, hey,
that person's wearing a mask,that's enough a misdemeanor to
create PC.
I think it circumvents a wholelot of stages.

Speaker 1 (07:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
That you should should meet, don't you?

Speaker 1 (07:47):
so.
So that's that's kind of mysort of rub with it, and I mean
this one.
It appears from the other factsof the case that he was.
You know there was somethinggoing on here and they
intervened and probably likely,you know, prevented maybe a home
invasion or, you know, armedrobbery or whatever.
But but, um, it's when you,when you, it's like when we talk

(08:11):
about body language and stufftoo, it's like if you're
starting with this one thing andthen working your way back, I
think you're getting yourselfinto the trick bag, because it's
not the actual item itself,it's the intent and use of said
item.
So in this case it's the, it'sthe face mask, or of said item.
So in this case it's the, it'sthe face mask.
You know, now, even with thatare there different types
because of you know, it's notlike a medical one where you see

(08:32):
people wearing, you know,especially if they're in public
a lot and they're sick or theydon't want to get sick, right,
that's very different than youknow, the, the type of mask he's
wearing, and I, I get, get that.
But it's this reliance on, onan item or a thing, um, that I
have the problem with becauseit's the, the intent behind it
is so much more importantbecause even look, look in there

(08:54):
one.
Obviously the police werecalled to the scene.
Some person, member of thepublic, thought that this person
was acting suspiciously.
Ok, so that's already, we'realready starting there.
He's wearing, you know, allblack and, looking at, he's
attempting to conceal something.
At this point the mask isirrelevant, I think.

(09:15):
But now, now it adds weight tothis person is attempting to
conceal themselves for somepurpose.
Obviously, because a mask does,especially the type he was
wearing.
Conceal themselves for somepurpose, obviously because a
mask does, especially the typehe was wearing.
But to me it's almost like you,this making this law about an
item.
I mean, you're, you're.
I think it's ridiculous.
You know what I'm saying.
You, you, you're, you're.

(09:36):
You're relying on an actualphysical object versus the
totality of the circumstances,the, the intent behind it and
someone's actual behavior.
Because I mean, again it goesto the Halloween argument, like
I'm testing out my new Halloween, you know costume for this year
.
You know, I don't know, we'regetting to that time of year,

(09:57):
it's two months away.
So you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
Like what are you supposed to do here Exactly?
So listen.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
Let me depose you briefly to show the folks that
might not work in lawenforcement or corrections all
the time how PC probable causeworks.
So, Brian, you work out.
Have you ever had a run or ajog, whatever you want to call
it, as part of your workout?
Yeah, definitely more of a jognow, do you choose specific

(10:34):
clothing for that run or thatworkout?

Speaker 1 (10:38):
yes, knowing that you're going to be doing that
movement, you're going to pick acertain type of short or shoes
or whatever to make it morecomfortable or more?
Yeah, to perform better, moreoptimally.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
And if you're going to pick a certain type of short
or shoes or whatever to make itmore comfortable or more, yeah,
to perform better, moreoptimally and if you're going to
be outside of the gym andperhaps crossing roads or
streets, do you have any highvisibility or reflective things
on that clothing?

Speaker 1 (10:57):
um, I personally don't, but if I was doing it in
a low light situation, I would,if only because I'd be doing it
during the day, because it's thesafety issue, like someone
could just run right into you,especially early morning or late
night times, like where peopleyou know it's less, you're not
as easily seen.

Speaker 2 (11:15):
You're spot on, and that's exactly what an attorney
would do with any person anddepose them on the stand and say
it's reasonable to assume thatif it's low light, you're going
to wear something so you don'tget hit by a car.
You get what I'm trying to say.
So here's how we establishprobable cause.
This person wasn't Okay.
And then when somebody says hi,I'm a police officer, can you

(11:37):
come over here and talk for amoment?
Well, unless the person has alearning disability or can't
hear you, uh, or some otherreason, you see how that works
disability or can't hear you, orsome other reason you see how
that works.
There's all those factors thatwe're talking about.
It's like a recipe.
It's like okay, one persontaught me a great thing about
cooking a long time ago Don'tput all your spices in at the
beginning, because certainspices wear out before the

(11:59):
food's done.
So that's why you can't putlike you know.
You can put salt at thebeginning and pepper at the
beginning.
You can't.
You often can use too muchbecause it doesn't wear out.
But there's many other spicesthat you have to put in just
before you serve or at thehalfway point, because if you
don't, they'll get watered downand they're forgotten.
So it's a waste of time.

(12:32):
But if you take a look at therecipe for probable cause, it's
all of those spices and when youput them in that make the
difference.
And so you know the copsgetting the call, that's huge.
It's on view or plain view oropen view completely different
standard.
And what were they suspiciousabout?
Well, they're investigatingcrime.
They're investigating maybe aperson that's lost.
Well, if a person's a criminalor they're lost, okay, there's a
different reaction when you goup and first contact them.
So I think here that there's acertain like Brian, you and I

(12:52):
travel more than anybody we knowthan I know, and I'm always at
the airport sitting with peoplewearing masks, and it is a
medical mask.
So if the guy was wearing amedical mask on that night,
would they have excluded him?
Do you see what I'm trying tosay?
Even the term mask is so vagueto me.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
Here, and here's why we're discussing this and why
this is important.
Right, because when we talkabout conducting predictive
analysis and intervening soonerand preventing something from
happening, obviously, especiallyin a situation like this,
there's there's some legalissues with that and this stuff
is always going back and forth.
Like a lot of people don't likethe concept of a pretext stop

(13:35):
or I.
You know, I saw you commit atraffic infraction, but I think
something else is going on, soI'm going to pull you over for
that traffic infraction.
You know the Supreme Court hasheld up this, this kind of stuff
.
It comes out in the media andthe news a lot and there's these
discussions as well.
You're only stopping peoplebecause of this and you
shouldn't be able to do that andit's like well, but that's how

(13:55):
we prevent people from or that'show we lock up people that have
outstanding warrants.
That's how we prevent futurethings from happening.
That's how we prevent this fromescalating.
That's how we get dope off thestreets.
That's how we get.
I mean, you're it.
It gives this appearance of, orpeople think it's like some
legal gray area, because in thein in the past too, it has been

(14:19):
used to harass people or or dosomething wrong, right, the
harass people or do somethingwrong, right, the problem with
it is, it's not, it's seeminglysubjective.
So therefore people go well,it's going to be misapplied.
But really any law or anystatute or any power or
authority that anyone has overanother has the potential to be

(14:41):
misapplied.
So there's always a costbenefit analysis there.
There's always a balance of,well, I mean, just in general in
the United States, right,there's there's a balance
between, uh, you know, safety,security and personal freedom,
right, and, and what you'reallowed to do, like, I mean,
that's always, that's a constantdebate in any democratic, you
know, free society that thosethings are always going to come

(15:03):
up because they have to.
Because I mean it's like, okay,everyone hates going through
security at the airport, but,like, you're giving up some of
your you know, your personalrights, you're giving up your
personal freedoms because you'reallowed to be searched in order
for the general, the greatersafety of everyone else.
So that's a constant right, uh,argument.
It's a constant discussion inthe background in any

(15:24):
functioning democracy.
So you have that element andthen now, when it gets down to
this level, it's like, well,you're just harassing me because
of this.
It's like, okay, well, no, Ipulled you over because you had
a broken taillight.
He's like, well, I don't havethe money to fix it.
It's like, okay, but thatdoesn't mean that now I can have
the discretion and not give youa ticket, because this is, you
know, it has.

(15:46):
You're not committing any otheract, but but it allows me
access to see if there'sanything else going on here,
because I have some othersuspicion that maybe some other
crime is.
And when you get down to that,this is the problem too with
different policies and differentlaws.
It's easy to pass the law, it'seasy for this court to decide
something, it's easy for theSupreme Court justices to write

(16:07):
an opinion and and and decide onsomething.
But the reason why there'sstill constant cases is because
when the application at theindividual local level it gets,
it gets complex and it is a caseby case basis.
And this case was immediatelyinteresting to me when you sent
it because of that, because it'slike, oh, we made a basis.
And this case was immediatelyinteresting to me when you sent
it because of that, because it'slike, oh, we made a law against
the mask.
And it becomes about the mask.

(16:28):
It's like, well, even just lookat what they said, and look at
the initial reports and look athow the report was written, like
the mask is sort of at the end,that's, it's like the it's,
it's like the bookend, it's theit's, it's uh, you know a nice,
by the way cherry on top.
Yeah, I mean, it really is.
It's the sprinkles on top ofthe cupcake.
Like you, you already hadeverything, all the elements

(16:48):
here, and it was this person waslikely doing about to commit a
crime, and so obviously youcan't you can't charge someone
for a crime that they didn'tcommit, which is why you have
these certain laws of what hewas doing.
I think it was the weaponscharge, uh, because it was a
concealed weapon.
And then the other one was whatwas it like?

(17:08):
I forget, but disruption orinterference of governmental
procedures, which is such ageneral thing.
I mean, that's like in themilitary, at the UCMJ, when they
go, ah, general article.
It's like, wait, what are youcharging me with General article
?
It's like, wait, what are youcharging me with General article
?
It's like but, but uh, now, now, this is the hard part, the

(17:29):
prosecution and and, and.
It's almost like easier for thedefense to say, hey, I was just
walking down the street, there'snothing wrong with that, but
this is a great case to show.
It's like, no, no, it goes fromsome member of the community
being curious with theirenvironment all the way to have
find this interesting.
Hey, this is anomalous, hey,this is, you know, reasonable

(17:50):
suspicion, this is probablecause, while we got something.
So that's why I like this casewhen you send it to me.
So, so it goes right from thebeginning of everything all the
way up that escalation to um, tothere was now we can charge
this person with a crime and allof the different you know,
personal freedom, civilliberties, uh, government over
all this stuff is sort of likein here in this case, which is

(18:13):
why I loved it when you said it.
So, so I I think there's a lotwe can, more even we can get
into with this.
So, um, like what, what, whatelse are the, the sort of big
elements here that that we wantpeople to know about?

Speaker 2 (18:27):
Well, the first one that I would add to, by the way,
to unpack, I had to write abunch of stuff down while you
were talking.
And remember, folks, we talkstream of consciousness, so you
should write that down too, soyou can ask, follow on questions
or read the article and thencome back to us, because you
know, when you're talking at arate like this, there's some
things that fall under the rugand we don't want them to.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
So one of the things that.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
Brian brought up that was great, is about the law.
Well, this law seems to me, onits face, to be
unconstitutionally broad andanytime something is too broad,
it has to be narrowed.
So sooner or later the courtswill catch on and narrow it.
But what we could do is wecould lose some good cases in
the meantime, because what willhappen is they'll throw out the

(19:11):
evidence and evidentiary valueis hugely important and
convictions.
So then the second part of thatis that you don't want to have
a law on the books that feelsunscrupulous and any time that
you lack intent.
So when?
I'll give you an example.
You and I have both seenmugshots over the years where

(19:33):
people took a magic marker andcovered their face.
Or people took face paint orcamouflage paint and covered
their face.
Well, technically, that's amask of some kind.
You're masking something.
Well, if you're masking yourintentions, that's a mask of
some kind.
You're masking something.
Well, if you're masking yourintentions, that's important to
me.
If you're wearing a maskbecause you're a magician, that
doesn't demonstrate intent.

Speaker 1 (19:54):
Yeah, again, the unconsciously broad.
Well, there is intent behindthat, but the intent is part of
the act and the entertainmentversus, of course.
Why do you feel the need tohide something?

Speaker 2 (20:09):
Is criminal intent present?
Because if it's not, then youcan't just going on a fishing
expedition over and over andremember and I love New York and
I've got no problem withcoppers and people go why are
you bashing cops?
I'm not, I'm bashing bad lawsand bad cops.
And these aren't bad cops.
They're doing what they weretold to do.
But remember, there was a timewhen we were doing broken

(20:30):
windows and broken windows weregreat because we found people
that were jumping turnstiles.
New York said look, if you fix abroken window, you're going to
fix the problem.
If you clean up graffiti, ifyou mow a lawn, you're going to
move off the ne'er-do-wellsbecause they're not going to
want to operate in that AOanymore.
And you know folks read it.

(20:51):
It's a great study and it diddo a lot of good.

Speaker 1 (20:54):
Yeah, it's a whole policy, yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
But the problem was it did some bad too.
So yeah, I get jump and turn,turnstile because a person
doesn't follow rules and thatmeans they don't follow rules in
other places and they don't payfor their tickets and they
don't show up for court.
But just recently, a few daysago, the Denver PD came down and
Governor Polis in Colorado andsome other people piled on and

(21:21):
said we're no longer going tostop people for small vehicle
infractions.
Okay, so is speeding a smallone, is a taillight out, is a
headlight out?
And now if you're talking abouta safety violation and that
person pops a curb and kills mykid, how are you going to handle
the lawsuit that comes fromthat?
And you brought up again we gobackwards a little bit you
brought up that people thatdon't take care of their car

(21:44):
sometimes are shit people thatalso have warrants.
Now there's the other half ofthe street, like you and I, that
don't make enough moneysometimes to go in immediately.
And you know, uh, get that thatalternator updated so the
lights were down, my batteriesout and stuff.
And you know what.
Cops are given discretion onthat letter of the law, spirit
of the law, where they can giveyou a maintenance violation and

(22:06):
you get so much time to fix itso you don't have to pay a fine,
or they can give you a courtesywarning which means, hey, get
that fixed, you can't drive onthe street without it, see.
So the law is like that.
You know wonderful boat on theocean where it's rocking and
it's taking the waves theyanticipated.
These things are going tohappen and there's precedent.
So, on the mask, if you couldshow me that it's a higher

(22:29):
likelihood that duringpost-COVID America, a mask is
going to lead to some personcommitting a crime or being
involved in insurrection?
I think it's the opposite.
I think if you show up for ariot and you're wearing a mask,
it's an additional charge.
I think if you commit a robberyand you were wearing a mask
during the robbery, it's anadditional charge, just like the
weapons offense and all thoseother things, but I think as

(22:52):
standalone PC, if that's theonly thing you got.
Remember the photo that weshowed in class about those
people walking in a bank andthey were all wearing masks.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Yeah, with the masks, yeah.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
Okay, how many times a day has that happened between
2017 and now?
Right, so come on, you can't.
Yeah, I just think my argumentwill and continues to be that
it's unconstitutionally broadand it needs a left and right
lateral limit and a limit ofadvance, and I think temporally,
where it falls in the probablecause, timeline is important.
Okay, so let's say that youwere driving down the street and
it draws your attention tothose people Absent other
factors.
Brian, would you still havemade that stop?

(23:33):
If, if, if, the the only thingthat you're making that stop on
is the physical mask itself,then I think you've got a shaky
house anyway.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
I think you need more or situational awareness or

(24:02):
this, and it's like you'rerelying on this, what, what is
an arbitrary standard orarbitrary observation?
Because, lacking any sort ofcontextual cues, like you can't
just point to one thing, or Imean, you know, unless it's so
obvious, right, okay, the guy'sputting the nose cone into the
rpg, yeah it's like there's.
No, there's only one reason whyyou do that like and so so it

(24:22):
doesn't need to be named, itdoesn't need to be called
something because it's soblatantly obvious.
So anytime you point to stufflike this, it's like the what,
why, and part of the reason whyI want to talk about this is
this is why, like we, we haveour terms like um, actually a
shout out to todd fox he reachedout with a question about
something with me the other day,but they ended up spurring a
great conversation about urbanmasking and social camouflage

(24:46):
and and why we give these thingsnames.
So, like what he's doing is islike urban masking, and that
mask is used to literally asurban masking, to kind of try to
hide Right or not be seen orhide his identity and maybe as a
story or a reason for socialcamouflage that he's using.
But the idea is, like we, weuse those terms not to to

(25:07):
because they're they're broadand they can fit any context.
Meaning, you know it, fastforward to october 31st.
All of these same observations.
Now there's like no weight toit, they're completely average,
from from the call to what he'swearing to what he's doing Like
it's, it's almost me.
So a simple change of the dateand the contextual part of it,

(25:30):
like, would completely changethe case, and so so I think a
lot of people don't reallyunderstand, and which is why we
have these types of laws.
It's because of lack ofunderstanding of even what.
What is meant by the totality,the circumstances and all of the
observations and that's what wefocus on.
Right Is all of those cues thatare happening.

(25:53):
What is the setting, what isthe scene, what?
And for this one too, it's likeyou can do a simple what if?
Game.
You know, I'm seeing thisperson.
Well, what, what, okay, a lotof times, people if, especially,
maybe it's the old, you know,angry guy down the street who
thinks everyone's up tosomething.
Let's say he's the one thatcalls in on this guy and sees

(26:13):
him like, oh, he thinkseveryone's doing something bad.
It's like okay, um, but whatelse could this person be doing?
What other reason would therebe to be dressed in all black
with a mask on it, like, whatother purpose is there?
And once you kind of look at itthat way, it's like OK, like
people, go down this wall, youcould be up to anything you
could have.

(26:33):
It's like, no, you're that's.
That's so unlikely.
What are the likely reasonsgiving today, at this time, what
this person is doing?
What are the other likelythings that it could be?
And then it starts to narrowdown, sort of well, wait a
minute, there's there's not alot of things that this person
could be doing there.
There is no other reason to behere in this area.
And everyone does a.

(26:53):
Well, you know they could justbe passing through.
It's like, yeah, but humansdon't do that.
Everything you do is done for areason.
You have goal oriented behaviorand intent behind something,
like the only people who don't.
It's like obviously severe, oryou know some sort of mental
health issue or you know where.
You know you see, like theschizophrenic person wandering

(27:14):
down the street, bouncing offthe walls and talking so there's
no, there's nothing there there.
Because there's nothing therethere.
There's no, there is no intentbehind anything.
Um, but that's so rare and it'sso obvious when you see that,
whereas everyone else falls intothis, so so it's like 99% of
people we're talking about herefall into this you go and do

(27:35):
something for a reason.
So I just is again.
You know it's a.
It's a great way to look at allof these.
Is not the item itself, andthat's what.
What kind of gets me about theway everyone talks about this
stuff.
It's like, well, they had aknife on them.
It's like, okay, I have apocket knife on me.
What does that mean?
Like, well, they had this.
And then you just take theselittle one items and try to come

(27:58):
up with a story behind it.
It's like, no, come up with thestory and then see how the
items fit, like, like, look atwhat their story is and then go,
okay, well, does this fit withwhat they're doing?
Does this fit with what they'rewith their?
Uh, how they're dressed and thereason to be here and the time
of day and the items they havewith them.
That's when you see theincongruence.
And it's like everyone sort ofseemingly does it the opposite

(28:20):
way.
Does that kind of make sense,greg?

Speaker 2 (28:21):
Yeah.
So I love that you brought thatup, because let's just do a
quick run back to the likelihoodscale.
So, historical perspective howmany times do I bring that up?
So you are a copper in thisarea and in the 13 years, 33
years, three months that you'veworked in this area, you've

(28:44):
never encountered a person witha mask committing a crime, or
you've often noted that when youcontacted a person wearing a
mask, they were in commission ofa crime or whatever.
The answer is so.
So when, when I talked to aperson and they jammed their
hands down in their front pocket, uh, uh, in 75% of the cases

(29:04):
that I was on, it always meantthey were concealing drugs or
narcotics or paraphernalia.
Okay, whatever that is.
That's how you build probablecause.
You know, that's how you.
You predict what's likelycoming next and the explanatory
storyline doesn't come from you.
It's an argument I had withMooney and Van D.
You know well, so manypossibilities.

(29:25):
Well, there's not so manypossibilities.
Well, the possibilities areendless.
They're not endlesspossibilities.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
No, they're not, they're finite.

Speaker 2 (29:32):
Right.
So if you lift your left foot,you're likely going to put that
foot down at some point in thenear future.
Okay, if you lift your leftfoot, you're likely going to put
that foot down at some point inthe near future.
OK, so it's how you're lookingat the information.
If you say, well, not enoughinformation, you're not looking
hard enough, and that's your job.
And your job is to measurethings against the baseline for
behavior that everybody does inthat same situation.

(29:53):
So now this guy I've seen himin the dark walk back and forth
three or four times and everytime a car comes by he steps
into the darkness, you know, andis there shadow and darkness at
night?
Yes, of course there is right,because there's light pollution.
We know all that.
Do your homework.
But the idea is, unless thisperson is a suffering albino

(30:21):
vampire, you get what I'm sayingwith pin with him.
Okay, what?
What would be the reason forthat?
So I watch a few times and thenI drive by and the person
conceals himself and I go hey,what's up?
Where do you live?
Do you live here?
Because if, if he lives there,then I gotta mind my own effing
business and go on patrol.
you see but uh he's got a dogwith a vision issue and he can
bring it out at night, of coursethere's going to be a reason
behind it.
But if there's got a dog with avision issue and he can bring
it out at night, of coursethere's going to be a reason
behind it.

(30:41):
But if there's not a reasonbehind it and it defies logic
and it's not normal humanbehavior, clinically normal
human behavior, then it's worthinvestigating.
So what separates thatsustained observation?
What takes away sustainedobservation?
A call from somebody going hey,I don't know this guy, he's in

(31:01):
my neighborhood and he's actingsuspiciously.
So the idea is you have athreshold of action or for
action, if you want to use itthat way, and that threshold
means that if you meetreasonable suspicion, then you
got to look a little harder toget the probable cause and you
don't want to throw things inthat are going to just muck it
up.

(31:21):
So if I already have reasonablesuspicion, I'm building probable
cause and you're wearing a maskand I believe that a crime is
afoot, now I've got it, nowyou've met that threshold.
People driving wearing a maskOkay, that's interesting.
You know, hanging a bandanafrom your column might mean that
you cracked the column and it'sa stolen car.
Hanging a bandana from yourlicense plate might mean it's a

(31:44):
false plate, you know, andyou're trying to conceal
something.
So to me, intent is a muchbetter standard to develop first
, because then you go, wow, ofall the things I can think of
this person's doing right now,the one that has the highest
quotient for intent and the onethat's seemingly the most
obvious is that person is goingto punch you or run from you or

(32:06):
shoot somebody or do somethingand, brian, that's an easy
standard to meet if you have asystem.
If you have a process, rightprocess right.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
And so this is, you know, kind of what we.
What we started discussingearlier too, was you know, you
have the for this specific case,the New York Civil Liberty
Unions, which criticized this,this mask law, and it says it's
ripe for selective enforcementby police department.
And of course they added, witha history of aggression and
discrimination.
Ok, then you have, uh,disability rights of new york

(32:41):
same thing.
They said it wasunconstitutional, discriminating
against people withdisabilities.
And then there's some federalclass action lawsuit.
It's a temporary restrainingorder and a preliminary
injunction to immediately stopenforcement of the ban, and so
this was approved by theirlegislator.
And then they're saying, inresponse to anti-semitic
incidents, often perpetrated bythose in mass right, and so the

(33:02):
law makes them yeah, yeah, yeah.
The.
The start, that right, theintent behind it and and what it
is is is you know, it's not, Idon't, it's not going after some
weird political issue orsomething.
It's just saying, hey, this iswhat's happening, this is what
we're seeing these.
But it says the law makes it amisdemeanor, punishable by up to
a year in jail and a thousanddollar fine, for anyone in

(33:23):
Nassau County to wear a facecovering to hide their identity
in public.
And then it exempts people whowear masks for health, safety,
religious or cultural purposesor for the peaceful celebration
of a holiday or similarreligious or cultural event for
which mass or facial coveringsare customarily worn.
So that there's my, there's myhalloween argument, um, but uh,
so it has these, you knowreasons in there or exemptions

(33:48):
in there.
And again, it's about you knowyou people forget too.
You know when you're in public,you have no reasonable
expectation of privacy.
You know legally, you can.
You know you're, you're, youcan be filmed, you can be
recorded, people can watch youwhen you're out in public and I
mean there's nothing, nothingagainst that.
So you know, any attempt toconceal your identity for some

(34:11):
reason is what it is, and that's.
That's very different thanwearing a mask for medical or
religious purposes or Halloween,right, you're that those are
specific reasons, versus just,I'm trying to hide my identity,
which this is the pushback.
Is that some people's like,well, why I don't have to show
my face in public, I don't haveto show which?
Okay, like, I get what you'resaying, but, you know you, it

(34:34):
goes right back to what you talkabout.
Well, there's historicalprecedent for something where
people typically only conceal orfeel the need to conceal their
identity when they're doing somesort of criminal act or
something they're not supposedto be doing.
So that's the sort of balancethere, with the argument, right,
that that's the crux of theissue is, well, I should be able

(34:55):
to do what I want and dresswhat I want and say what I want
and do what I want.
It's like, okay, you're right,you know you should be free to,
you know, do as you please, solong as you're not impeding on
the rights of others.
This is the general conceptbehind our legal system and our
laws.
But because people do andbecause they use it in this
manner, and it's happened somuch over the course of history,

(35:18):
it adds weight to that.
Well, the reasoning behind it.
Right, it's not just like anarbitrary thing that they came
up with.
It's for a specific purpose,and then there's even exemptions
to that purpose, like most lawswill do.
It's not just a black and whitething.
There's always some gray area,but that goes back to what

(35:38):
they're.
They're talking about is that itcan be in.
What I brought up was that thenit becomes selective
enforcement.
Then we only go after certainpeople for wearing masks and not
others, and it's like, well,yeah, of course that could
happen, but but when it does,you can figure that out and try
that out in court, right?
I mean, you can't just not dosomething because, because it

(36:00):
could be used, you know, withthis one arbitrary item or thing
, then you don't need to, youdon't have to do that.

(36:22):
Start with what's going on andthat's what makes this person's
behavior suspicious.
It's not the mask itself.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
Yeah, and your argument about a thing seems too
prompt.
But folks, it's the same coin,it's just two sides of it.
So I'll use your argument forwhy I believe that this traffic
enforcement you know saying, oh,just don't enforce these lower
level Look, if you're going toenforce a traffic law and let's

(36:51):
say it's not a major thing it'sfail to use a blinker that leads
to road rage but leads to death, so enforcing it is a good
thing.
Now you enforce it and find outthe person is indigent and they
don't have enough money to fixwhatever and they have some
other problem.
Well, that's what the courtsare for and that's what
discretion is for.
So the idea is you said it earlyon in the broadcast that it's a

(37:14):
case-by-case situation.
But tying up law enforcementand saying we'll no longer do
them why We'll no longer do them?
Because we're targeting aspecific population Well, that's
wrong by the Constitutionanyway.
So that means the law has tochange.
So if you're talking aboutsomething, let's make sure that
we go at it the right way.
There's people that say what'swrong with these demonstrations

(37:37):
where we knock over shit andburn down stuff and everything
else?
Well, you obviously haven'tread your constitution, because
it's peaceable.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (37:45):
And you have the right to peacefully assemble
anywhere, but you don't have theright to do other things.
So we cannot pick and choose,and that's specifically what
selective enforcement is, but wecan't do it on either side.
We can't do it on either side,we can't do it where the cop
does it and we can't do it foryou, brian, as a private citizen
, pick and choose what you'll doand what you won't do.

(38:05):
I tell you what I don't feellike this is important.
Well, now you're aconstitutionalist maybe in the
bad sense the one percenter, youknow that that say hey, I'm
going to draw my own licenseplate and put cardboard to the
back of my car, I'm a freetraveling person, or whatever
that nonsense is.

Speaker 1 (38:23):
How many times have you seen that turn into a?

Speaker 2 (38:24):
homicide Right.
That turns into shooting.

Speaker 1 (38:26):
That turns into violence.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
So the idea is, for public order, there are certain
laws that you need to enforce,and this is one.
That's a great thing if it'sthe icing on the cake, if it's
the sprinkles, I would take itto this Look, atmospherics.
We used to work on militaryinstallations.
Every month I mean, it wasn't amonth that went by that we

(38:49):
weren't working there, andsometimes when we went in, it
was a holiday or weekend.
On a holiday or weekend, therewas no line and you could pull
right up to security, flash yourID and go right on the base.
Okay, that's called anatmospheric and a geographic,
and those differences that weregoing on, those were very potent
, they were obvious.
So if I was testifying to that,I would say every other day that

(39:12):
I went there, the line wentaround the block and we had to
wait for hours, but on thisspecific day there was no
traffic, and that's what drew myattention to this situation.
So, whether it's the weather orwhether it's something that
stuck out of the car, this wasthe only car on the road that
had a eight-foot pole with a20-foot banner flying behind the

(39:34):
car and weaving in and out oftraffic.
That's why you articulate thosethings, because baselines
change depending on things likeweather, time of day, whether
it's a holiday or not, whichcity limit you just crossed into
, and so you have to constantlyupdate that information.
And we're not talking boy, dothe loop, we're talking that.
And again, a shout out to BASEthat BS-ing and thinking that

(39:59):
you have to constantly updatethe model of the reality that
you're in, because if you don't,brian, it's not as good as it
was 15 minutes ago, you know.
So here's a simple case that ifit's the first thing that draws
your attention I say it's wrong.
And in this one it's kind ofdefeating the argument because
they got a call on suspicion.
But that alone is probablecause.

(40:19):
That alone is opening your doorbecause it's a high court
misdemeanor.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
That's still sketchy.

Speaker 1 (40:27):
Yeah, and you know it's again why we're discussing
this.
You know, specific case on, youknow, the human behavior
podcast is that we it's like Imean I already said it but it's
like unnecessary to look atthese different items.
I can, I can back to what yousaid is just really understand a

(40:51):
baseline and understandnormalcy and what's typical, and
there's the.
This goes back to um, you know,one of the things I always tell
people is like, well, humanbehavior is way simpler than you
think, but also way morecomplex than you realize.
And and or way I say it's likeway simpler than than than most

(41:12):
people are willing to accept andalso a lot more complex than
people understand.
And those two things can betrue at the same time.
Like, you can be your ownunique little individual and
have your own thoughts, feelingsand emotions and experiences,
but at scale across thepopulation, they're rarely ever

(41:35):
unique and they're rarely everdifferent.
Meaning the details aredifferent the time, the location
, the date but but the theoverall, uh, you know, um, I
would say prototypically sort ofthe same right, the different
experiences that that peoplehave.
And because, you know, becauseI'm a huge like, one of the

(42:14):
greatest things about ourcountry is that we have these
civil liberties, we have freespeech, we have the ability to
literally it's we're predicatedon.
You should be able of.
That stuff gets tied in togetherand so, which is why the law is
what it is.
So the law is written down, sothat it's black and white.
However, the interpretation ofit is contextually based.
Therefore, it can't beoversimplified or it can't be

(42:38):
put into such a narrow box, butit also can't be too broad, like
you talked about.
Like this is like, maybe thisis too broad, maybe this is too
far, and that stuff gets dealtout every day, but but it's,
it's so like.
It's so analogous to behaviorin general, greg.
Right, because you know, yeah,you can do whatever you want,
you can go along, but it doesn'tmatter.
You're going to set thesespecific patterns, even when

(43:01):
you're trying not to sometimes.
Right, it's like the.
You brought up the military.
So the military example was youknow, you have to don't walk
along the ridgeline, because youcan be seen for frickin miles
up there.
So you go what they call themilitary crest below that.
But the problem is too, ifyou're walking along something

(43:23):
hill, guess what you're going tostart doing?
You're going to start goingdownhill because naturally,
gravity and human, the brain,wants the easiest way to go.
So you actually have to planfor things.
You actually have to take alook at your route and go did I
take this same route before?
Because you will, even whenyou're trying not to, you
default to easy mode and youdefault to what you know.
And so that's kind of the pointof of of all of this.

(43:45):
And in this case, because thisis a great discussion, um to to
get into all of these differentdetails, like you could break
this case down and do 10 minutesevery day for the next two
weeks or something.
You know what I mean.
Like you could break this,these issues, down into like
modules, almost, or discussionpoints, and keep the same thread

(44:06):
going of the same case that'show much is in here, because you
know a lot of times we have gotit before.
It's like why do you guys pickthese, these random things?
It's like, well, they're,they're not random.
I understand why you thinkthey're random and like how come
you guys don't comment on likesome new thing that's going on?
It's like, well, they're,they're not random.
I understand why you thinkthey're random and like, how
come you guys don't comment on,like some new thing that's going
on.
It's like, well, because thedetails aren't out yet and we
don't know what actuallyoccurred, um, you know, and it's

(44:27):
like when, when you can youhave to to to pick one, it'll
all be wrong.
But the other thing is, um,these are the elements and these
are the cases that matter.
Right, meaning that this is, um, this is a window into so many
different areas, and the the bigones that we hear about on the

(44:48):
news are always are typicallynot the best for learning points
.
They're like, okay, well, it'sobvious something went wrong and
someone made a mistake andthat's why this occurred.
So, so it's almost like, notgreat for analysis.

Speaker 2 (45:00):
Or they're just, you know, eye candy.
Hey, look at, look at thisfirst sentence.
Do you want to read more on acaper that's very interesting or
new?
But, brian, just because it'snuanced doesn't mean that it's
going to have longevity, doesn'tmean it's going to impact my
life or livelihood.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
Yeah, and then that's why we picked these ones too,
because this, this does impact,you know, kind of everyone at an
individual level.
A law like a mask law, becauseyou're kind of saying the
government gets to decide whatyou can wear, you know what I
mean.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
I mean it's getting into that area that let's talk
about some companion capers thatare close enough that you'll
start seeing our reasoning.
So recently Colorado handeddown as a matter of fact I'm
holding it here in my hand, Idon't want to show it for
non-attribution but the lawsversus concealed carry, open

(45:52):
carry and carry in general ofguns at polling places.
So the law always has been thatwhether you're open carry or
concealed, as long as you'relicensed, you have no problem,
go vote.
But then some people came upwith the idea that, listen, if
you're open carrying at thepolls, I might feel intimidated
that you're trying to push me tovote one way or the other, and

(46:16):
they don't allow people toproselytize for their candidate
there.
So why would they allow you tohave an open weapon?
Well then, that it didn'timpact a concealed carry,
licensed carry people.
And then somebody came up andsaid well, wait a minute, if you
got a gun you're more likely tocommit a crime.
That's not true, and theproblem is that there's a bunch

(46:37):
of people that believe that andthe next thing you know now it's
nobody can carry a gun unlessyou're a uniformed officer.
And, by the way, if you are,don't show up at the poll
because you'll be forcing thatpolice state on me and changing
the vote.
What happens is all thisancillary horseshit is going
after the law.
So every time youFrankensteinian bolt on
something else to it, it becomesunconstitutionally broad or

(47:00):
ridiculous when seen on its faceon what they tried to
accomplish.
If you're trying to lower thelevel of violence at the polls,
I understand.
Is this the way to get there?
If you're trying to lower thelikelihood of somebody feeling
intimidated, is this the way toget here?
And let me show you just onemore quick one.
Brian and I folks, we were at aplace where we were talking to

(47:23):
some subject matter experts oncertain things and they were
working certain demonstrations.
And the demonstrations thatthey were working always became
violent and artifacts andevidence that they gave us in
support was when they walked bya group.
The group was talking aboutthings like you'll handle the
emergency evacuation andemergency medical.
You'll handle the comms withthe cops.
You'll handle the externalcomms with the vehicles.

Speaker 1 (47:45):
You'll handle medical yeah.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
And so you remember that caper.
And at the same type ofgathering, I remember picking up
a flyer and the flyer saidthese things work as gas mask if
they use tear gas.
These things work againsthandcuffs.
This is how you disassemble abarricade.
Well, brian, all of thosethings, taken one at a time,
might not mean something, but ifI start stacking them up and

(48:10):
looking at my intent, scale, mylikelihood scale.
Now, what am I looking at?
So in this caper, I like thatapproach, I like having a
process and it fits the process.
But anytime I have a processand it's the first thing I'm
looking at, that becomes thelens that shapes my vision on
everything else.

(48:30):
So I don't want it to do that.
I don't want just the personwearing a mask alone to start
going.
That's suspicious, because oncewe use the word suspicious,
we're hooked.
If we go, well, that'sinteresting, because the person
standing out in front of a7-Eleven wearing the mask and
it's a high crime rate,completely different standard
and I think that's what weendorse and I think that's the
direction that we like todemonstrate to people.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
Yeah, and the interesting versus suspicious.
This is a great one becausetypically someone from the you
know the public calling in therethey're going to say, hey, this
is suspicious, or I think thisand you're kind of already,
you're already starting to youcould jam the square peg in the
round hole.
But then again, most, like most, most police officers, are
going to go OK, like great, it'ssuspicious, maybe it's not, you

(49:20):
know.
I mean like, because you havethe street experience of people
calling in and saying everythingis suspicious and this is weird
and it's usually most of thetime it's, it's not anything.
But the problem is when it issomething, it's usually
something very serious, likethis guy, an armed robbery or an
armed home invasion like he.
It goes right back to the, thegroups you talked about with
with the example.

(49:41):
Um, you know, when you'retaking these steps, you were
creating a plan to do thesethings and cause.
You're expecting them to happen.
That demonstrates your intent.
If you're showing someone, youknow this is how you bypass a
locked door, this is how youbypass these security measures.
Why would you do that unlessyou were attempting, unless you

(50:04):
planned on actually carryingthat act out like I?
I mean it's, it's the, the, theprotest example because that
was a good where I said, well,what should you expect to see,
while someone showing up withlike signs?
You know, maybe some bottles ofwater they're going to be out
there for a while and somesnacks and and you know certain
elements you know, maybe theyare going to bring, yeah, maybe,

(50:25):
and maybe they they do thinkthat, well, the police might
come in and shoot tear gas at us.
So we're, we'll, we'll havethese things on us to to still
be able to breathe, or somethinglike those things kind of make
sense.
But when you show up and you'rewearing like a certain type of
clothing or you have you knowkit and weapons on, and you
you've got you know a gas maskon and your brain it's like you

(50:48):
know it's, it's because that'smy argument too with like the
open carry stuff, and we'vetalked about it before, about
the guy who showed up at theatlanta airport with, like you
know, a rifle, and it's like, oh, it's like you're making us all
fucking dumber, like what youknow.
Well, some of the shit I seepeople carrying.
I'm like, what do you expect?
What do you think is going tohappen today?
Because your, your loadout ismore than I've carried in combat

(51:09):
and and so it's like what?
What do you, you're, you'replanning for something, uh, for
something else here, so it thatthat's a.
These are all thosedemonstrations of intent that
we're talking about, and it andit just, but it's compared to
what I should expect to see.
It's not just drawn on whatyou're wearing or what you're.
You know the, the, the, the hatthat you have on and the

(51:31):
message on it, necessarily, orwhat political affiliation you
have.
It's, it's not any of that,it's, it's it's the steps you,
you took, it's the behavioryou're exhibiting within a
defined context.
And so, um, I, I don't knowlike, there's, there's so much
of these that I love discussing,because these are the, these
are the good ones.
Actually, this is the.

(51:51):
The less known ones are usuallythe best ones.
And you're not, you're not,you're not going to get a
documentary made about this,because you know, it's seemingly
nothing there where I'm like no, this is everything.
This is a law, this is thebehavior, this is what rights
you have.
This is a concerned citizentrying to make their
neighborhood safer you know whatI mean and doing the right

(52:12):
thing, and it's policeintervening before a situation
occurs, and that's hard to dolegally right, if I don't know
how to articulate that, if Idon't look for those things or
find things curious orinteresting in my environment,
and so that's what it alwaysstarts with.
And so I, you know, I mean I Iappreciate these types of

(52:35):
discussions because I thinkthey're so much more valuable
than just picking apart somevideo of something where
something happened, or talkingabout that high profile case and
you know what I think mighthave occurred.
It's like all right man, likethere's no value in those to me.
You know what?

Speaker 2 (52:53):
I'm saying.
But if anybody that routinelylistens to Brian and I, the one
thing that I hope we encourageyou is what I like to call the
Sean Clemens quotient.
Sean thankfully workaholic, buthe has time in the evenings to
scour all types of news from alltypes of places.

(53:16):
And then Brian and I areconstantly going on the legal
sites and the medical sites andwhat happens is the confluence
of Shelly, brian, sean, a coupleother great folks that send us
stuff.
What happens is we've got thisfodder and then we go through
them and we go, okay, which onesare hard?
Which ones would be hard for adefense attorney or hard?

Speaker 1 (53:36):
for a prosecutor?

Speaker 2 (53:37):
Which ones are ACLU going to jump on?
Which ones are the SouthernPoverty Law Center going to do?
And, brian, you're right, thoseare the least popular ones.
But you know what, for everycitizen, those are the ones that
butt right against our rightsand are the most important.
And when it's an opinion-basedthing, like you see, some states
enact something, when it'ssomething and don't get me wrong

(54:00):
on this one where we're addingsomebody's name to a law,
sometimes what's happening iswe're getting deep into the
emotion and not deep into thescience, not deep into the
research, and that's why we haveto scale some of these back.
They come out with goodintention.
There's no hiding the fact thatsomebody wearing a shemagh and

(54:20):
advocating Hamas was wearing aface mask on a campus and the
cop goes man, wouldn't it begreat if I could go over and ask
that person for theiridentification?
Right, you see, that's howthese things start and that's
not a bad intent.
They didn't have the intent to,hey, let's beat down this class

(54:42):
or group of people.
But what happens, brian, isonce you open, once that short
end of the wedge is in somethinglike this that's too broad and
not constitutionally protected,then you're going to get those
creeps.
You're going to get those people, and they're going to follow
that spiral Right.
So so our voice, hopefully, ismaking people think twice about
it going.
Well, I never considered that,and we're not playing devil's
advocate because we're notagainst the cops and we're not

(55:03):
against the rule of law inpublic order.
What we're saying is have youconsidered this?
And this is just as importantas that, and that's why I like
them too.
I like these capers.

Speaker 1 (55:14):
Yeah, yeah.
Well, we got into a lot, so I'dlove to get any feedback from
folks.
You, of course, can.
All of our Patreon members canreach out directly on there and
if anyone wants to check thatout, we've got all kinds of
other information on there aswell.
But reach out to us.
We have, obviously, thehumanbehaviorpodcast at gmailcom

(55:36):
is how you can email us orreach out, but we'd love to get
feedback and actually, uh,depending on what podcast player
, there should be a little linkin there, you know, and it says
send us a text message.
It's a, it's a one way kind ofcommunication.
We'll get it.
We can't respond on there, butwe can.
We can respond on on air andrecord something.
But, um, we'd love to getfeedback from folks, um, on on

(55:59):
any of the stuff that wediscussed, because it helps, uh,
it helps us make the messagemore clear and more cogent, um,
in a sense, when we hear yourperspective on it.
So so I always ask people togive us, give us feedback.
So, um, I don't know anythinganything else to add on this one
.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
Greg, just briefly, man, uh, you know, uh, linkedin
Folks.
If you're on LinkedIn and yougive us a thumbs up or you give
us a listen or you give us arepost, those things are really
hugely powerful on social media.
Brian knows all the other.
I'm only on LinkedIn.
But even if you hear ofupcoming training or we're
posting somebody else's positionfor visibility because they're

(56:40):
looking for a job, help abrother out.
You know, if you've got achance, you know your brothers
and sisters are on LinkedIn.
Give us a look.
So I really appreciate theopportunity and I'm looking
forward to our Patreon.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
Yeah, all right.
Thanks everyone.
So much for tuning in, anddon't forget that training
changes behavior.