FBI PROFILERS DISCUSSES THE NUANCES OF UNDERSTANDING THE LAW

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
Welcome to Inside the Criminal Mind podcast, where we analyze some of the most
notorious criminal cases with psychology and criminologycombined. Have you ever wondered what your
furry friend is really thinking, Well, let me introduce to you my new
book, Dog Psychology by doctor CarlosVasquez. As a psychology professor with over

(00:30):
ten years experience, I've unlocked thesecrets of the canine psyche. I will
teach you how to understand your dog'sbody language, to code their barks and
wines, solve behavioral puzzles, andstrengthen your bond like never before. With
Dog Psychology, you'll see the worldthrough your dog's eyes. Don't just be
a dog owner, become a dogwhisperer. So go get Dog Psychology by

(00:53):
doctor Carlos Vasquez, available now onkindle or paperback on Amazon. Welcome back,
everybody, Welcome back, Andy,Hey, Carlos, how are you.

(01:14):
I'm rolling along, how are you. Well, it's the middle of
July already. It's crazy how fastthe summer is flying by. But we'll
be into the fall before we knowit. Absolutely well, that's not Russia
too much. But yeah, yeah, well you don't have you do have
kids, right, anyone with kidsat home during the summer might want to

(01:34):
rush it so they go back toschool. That's right, that's right,
they do. By the way,folks, we're going to continue our discussion
we did one last time on thedifference between premeditated murder and crimes of passion,
and today we continue on. We'llbe looking at different types of cases
and defenses and things of that nature, as well as we explore domestic violence.

(01:57):
You know what to do, Makesure to share, subscribe, hit
that I like button. You know, we like it. So, Adie,
what do you got for us today? Well, you know, I
think we left off with motives,so it's a good place I think we
should pick back up the differences betweenthe motives of passions. Crimes of passion
usually manslaughter charges versus premeditative first degreemurder charges that you get in a premeditated

(02:20):
homicide. You know, remember thePEPs. It's a good place to start.
Motive as we look at it isa personal, economic, political,
or power and socials. The acronymisPEPs, and a lot of a lot
of crimes of passion are very personaland so as a result, because there's
a lot of anger and even hatredat the time. And it's a lot

(02:44):
of times it happens spontaneously to orcontiguous to an argument or discovery of infidelity.
For example, the crime scene isoften disorganized because they'll take a blunt
instrument and they'll use that as aweapon, or they'll grab a knight and
they'll use that as a weapon orsomething that nature and the and the crime

(03:05):
scene itself is typically disfrenzied and fullof anger, and that the attack is
often very vicious, whereas a premeditatedcrime scene may not even look like a
crime scene. It could be stagedas a suicide, uh, it could
be set up with poison, sothere's really very little obvious conflict. And

(03:30):
oftentimes these these crimes come from somethingvery personal, economic, power based,
or or social. So that's that'sone issue. The other thing with passion
crime is emotional involvement. Both typesof crimes obviously involve some kind of strong
emotions such as love or jealousy,revenge, or an obsession even towards the

(03:52):
victim, but romantic crimes crimes ofpassion typically happen fairly quickly. You find
out that your spouse is cheating onyou, or captured them cheating at the
time, and then you pull agun out and you kill them. Whereas
the Scott Peterson case, you know, was highly publicized. In the trial,
he was convicted of murdering his wife, Lacy Peterson, and in that

(04:15):
case, the defense tried to makethe argument that it was a prime of
passion, if in fact he wasguilty of it, he was, you
know, something that had happened spontaneously, Whereas the state successfully made the argument
that it was premeditated and that hisbehavior is over a period of time,
including his affair with another woman orinconsistent with the alibi that he was using,

(04:39):
and the prosecution argued that Scott Petersonmurdered his wife to escape the marriage
and his impending fatherhood. He wasfound guilty in two thousand and four.
But I think that case has recentlybeen appealed successfully. That is that the
case in the Peterson case, I'lltake a look at as we're talking.
I don't know if that has beenor has not. Yeah, I think

(04:59):
I I think that in that case, you know, the body of Lacy
Peterson was found. Remains were foundin San Francisco Bay several months after the
case and I haven't kept up withit. But last I heard sometime last
year, I thought the case wasreversily appealed it, but I wasn't sure
if they had appealed it. Yeah, Scott Peterson, Right, Yeah,
Scott Peterson. But then that leadsus to the legal consequences and why the

(05:26):
defense may try to argue that thecase was a crime of passion manslaughter versus
you know, a murder first degree. And that's because there we go there
by the way, if you want, Yeah, what what did you find?
Six weeks ago, a month afterbeing convicted, Peterson was originally sentenced
to death. After two appeals atCalifornia Supreme Court, or returned Peterson's death

(05:49):
sentence but upheld as conviction. Petersrecedence in December twenty twenty one to life
in prison without the possibility of parole. In twenty twenty two, he was
denied another trial. This is theUSA today as of six weeks ago.
Yeah, okay, yeah, sohe's in jail life without parole. Changed
it. Yeah, and probably youknow on this what were the topic we're

(06:12):
talking about? Was it premeditated ordid this state have enough evidence to show
that the motive and was premeditated.If that's not the case, then the
legal consequences may be lesser. Sothey spare his life, he gets life
without parole because it was not premeditated, planned out, and intentional. Well,
that's something else we could look at. The future shows too circumstantial evidence

(06:35):
cases. Well, yeah, becauseyou know, in all these cases,
eventually, when they're adjudicated, it'sthe ability for the state to prove their
case number one, and then ifthey do, it's up to the jury
to determine whether or not they deservedeath or life without parole. In many

(06:55):
states, every you know, fiftystates, so they have different laws for
murder and crime can get one lessjail time typically and often avoid jailed or
a death sentence or as a premeditatedeven romance crimes highlight the diversity of motives
and can range from from you know, life without parole to death in many

(07:15):
states, those states that have adeath penalty. What's interesting is a contrasting
case is the O. J.Simpson case. You talk about a disorganized
crime scene in that case, Imean it appears that Nicole Simpson and Brown
and Ronald Goldman were ambushed in nineteenninety four right now on that night I

(07:43):
think it was in June of nineteenninety four, Goldman and Simpson were found
brutally murdered. But remember what Isaid earlier about oftentimes these crimes of passion
are spontaneous, and so the perpetratoror will take a weapon it's close by
or that they brought, maybe notintending to use, but then once they

(08:07):
use it, they often, especiallywhen when it's frenzied and full of anger,
can do some barrithic damage. Ibelieve I have my fact straight.
Nicole Simpson's head was almost decapitated inthat case, I think so. Yeah,
And that led to a lot ofconspiracies in regards to his son doing

(08:28):
it, not him, because hisson was a chef. And here's you
know, I want to make apoint on that if I can. It's
somewhat related to this, but justto kind of give a caveat to people
out there. His social media isso much so full of disinformation and misinformation.
Misinformation as folks, as somebody tellingyou something without them intentionally trying to

(08:50):
deceive you or trick you. Theyjust they don't have a knowledge for it.
And then the other one is disinformationwas intentional deception and it's false information.
But I think it's important for peopleto believe, to understand, right
Andy, that these things are complex. It's not so simple. You can't
just go off with three or fourpieces of evidence that you see on the
news, the little clips that theyshow, and everybody thinks, oh my

(09:13):
god, this is slam dunk,and no, you haven't even gone to
trial yet. Where then you startseeing even more stuff. And even in
trial, right Andy, you don'tsee everything they're not going to show you.
Prosecutor is not stupid, he wasthe defense side. I can't think
of a better example than the O. J. Simpson on Nicole Brown case
because of when the facts are presentedthey are it's the job of the defense

(09:35):
to cause doubt reasonable doubt in theminds of at least one jurorm and so
the presentation of the evidence is verynuanced. If the glove doesn't fit,
you must have quit was one ofthe you know stayings at the time.
But the DNA evidence is also veryvery important in today's trial outcomes, and

(10:00):
in the O. J. Simpsoncase, it's it's important to point out
that at the criminal case, hewas acquitted of the crime, even though
in uh a civil trial later hewas he was unculpable for the murders.
And in that particular case, andI can't think of one that's a better
example, at least best known example. In that particular case, there was

(10:22):
a veteral it was a lot ofhatred, that was a you know,
it was well known that that O. J. Simpson and his wife had
a volatile relationship, or his exwife had a volatile relationship, and then
he was very jealous. And justto use that case as an example of

(10:43):
how explosive passion can be, youcan see how there's a distinction, a
fundamental difference in the types of crimesbetween crimes of passion and those that are
premeditated and require planning. And perhapsthat's the biggest difference between the too,
is the planning that's involved. Crimesof romantic passion are impulsive, there's very

(11:05):
little planning, whereas premeditated romance crimesinvolved careful planning, sometimes over an extended
period of time. There's cases likethe diet and I'm gonna mispronounce this the
dipolodi dippolodoo, Yeah, dippolodo,that's it. Dipolto. That was in

(11:28):
two thousand and nine in Florida.And yeah, and this particular case,
the wife was accused of soliciting ahit man to murder her husband, Michael
in two thousand and nine in BoydenBeach. The police staged a fake crime
scene and then informed her her husbandhad been killed by the hitman, and
they even captured her. I thinkI've seen this video several times, her

(11:52):
reaction on hidden camera, and thehit man, unbeknownst to her, was
an undercover police officer. Now thisis not, you know, unique in
the sense that this is the samekin facts of case have happened before,
but it clearly showed the planning thatwas involved in the intentional attempted murder of

(12:13):
her husband, Michael. During thetrial, which was again a national trial,
the prosecution argued that she had carefullyplanned and orchestrated her husband's murder to
gain access to his life insurance policy. So you have a personal issue,
right, she hates this guy,but she also has an economic So as

(12:37):
we've said, keats oftentimes has anamalgam amalgamation of these motives. Right,
So she had a personal issue,didn't like the guy, but she also
wants to benefit from his death.The defense team countered that the plot was
the setup orchestrated by her husband andthe police to gain fame and attention,
right that she had never had anactual intention of murdering her husband. She

(13:01):
was convicted in twenty eleven for solicitationa first degree murder, and she was
sentenced to twenty years. So it'snot in this case she failed at the
murder, which probably had a lotto do with the fact that she didn't
get the death penalty, But thiswas an attempted murder case. She got
twenty years for attempted murder. Theconviction was later overturned an appeal related to

(13:24):
jury selection issues, and the subsequenttrial she continued to argue the same defense,
which was entrapment, and she wasconvicted and given sixteen years in twenty
seventeen. So, but what's interestingin that case and the reason why it's
notable, is because it involved thegovernment's involvement in a pre planned murder and

(13:48):
intrinsic intrinsic part of it, youknow, the complicated part of her hiring
a hitman and them doing the youknow, wiring her the car up and
gathering all that evidence. I cantell you from personal experience, that's a
lot of work. And so that'swhy that case is pretty well known.

(14:09):
You know. The other one ofthe other differences between the two is the
emotional state at the time of thecrime, when when people have crimes of
passion and the reason why the woundsoftentimes are over top right. You'll see
not just one or two stab wounds, You'll see forty fifty sixty stab woings.

(14:30):
You'll see a decapitation, You'll seeyou'll see some really horrendous injuries.
And when the perpetrator is is fueledwith hatred and it's and passion that's misplaced.
So this impulsive type of violence isoftentimes different than the premeditated, not
to say that they can't be horrificwounds from a premeditated case oftentimes, not

(14:58):
oftentimes, but there are cases wherea premeditated murder includes putting the body in
a wood chipper or severing the limbsfor more easily disposal. There's a case,
the Chris Coleman case, which wasin two thousand and nine, and
he was a security chief for televangelistJoyce Meyer's ministry, and he was convicted

(15:24):
of murdering his wife, Sherry,and as well as his two young sons
in their home in Illinois. Theirbodies were found the eleven year old son
and the nine year old son,along with the thirty one year old wife,
discovered in their beds, strangled todeath. Now, imagine how personal
that is to strangle your kids.It's to me, it's beyond pale.

(15:48):
I can't even fathom a human,let alone more delusion everything else. Yeah,
that sounds like it's a delusion ofsome kind of psychotic episode. Usually
when you see those kind of violence. Yeah, in this case, and
in many of these types of caseswhere they involve murders of family members,
the first suspect is the husband andor wife. It's like you and I

(16:14):
have talked about this in the past, that the investigative process starts like a
stone in a pond, and wherethe rock hits, that first ring is
usually the people closest to them familymembers are known associates, and then it
expands. And you've heard of thegeneral rule of forty eight hours to try
to solve the case within forty eighthours. Those rings, just like in

(16:36):
a pond when you throw that rock, those rings are very strong at the
epicenter, but then they get morefaded as they gradually go out. In
Chris Coleman's case, and this isnot unusual due to several factors, including
inconsistencies in his statements. The policelooked at him, but his lack of
emotion is what really struck the police. So this is a guy who had

(16:59):
been thinking about this act for sometime. He had already reconciled the emotional
aspects. Imagine again the type ofmindset it takes to strangle the life out
of your children, your eleven yearold son and your nine year old son.
They've got to be gasping for air, they've got to be fighting back,
and you're strangling them to death.And it was found in the investigation

(17:21):
that the murders were planned because hewanted to start a new life with another
woman. He had an extramarial affairwith a woman named Tara Lynz who they
were high school friends. They becameromantically involved, and they argued that he
planned these murders to eliminate his familyso he and Lynz could live without the

(17:42):
burden of his ex wife and children. And you know again, how much
of that is financial because when youget divorced, I'm telling you straight up
as a man who's gone through twoof them, it's expensive, right,
But there's something else going on therebecause if you can't I don't care if

(18:04):
I'm living in a shoe box,you know, and and living day to
day. There's a whole different dimensionthat these people have to go through cognitively
to say I'm gonna kill my familyso that I can, you know,
buy a new car next year.Just to me, it's it's when we

(18:25):
you know, when people hear aboutsomebody committing suicide, We're like, wow,
how could they do that? Howcould they reconcile that? Well,
because you're not in their mental state, you know that. And similarly,
these people who plan these murders,they already reconciled the death of the people
they want to kill, so theydo so with less emotion. As the

(18:45):
point, he was convicted of threecounts of first degree murder and sentenced to
life in prison without the possibility ofparole. But it highlights that case particularly
highlights what you see in domestic violence. Uh and and those cases they don't
always end in crimes of passion.Oftentimes there's a you know, a more

(19:07):
gradual, slippery slope to the endof the relationship that goes from anger to
hatred. There's another case that's prettywell noted, the Smith case Morgan Smith
case of two thousand, which seta legal precedent in Canadian jurisprudence in terms
of self defense. You and Iwere talking about this earlier, is when

(19:30):
they you know, when the batteredwife syndrome is argued. Right. In
this particular case, Shannon Smith wasconvicted in Canada second degree murder of her
husband, Michael Morgan. The reasonit gained attention was because of the element
of domestic violence and the argument ofthe battered woman syndrome of defense. Shannon

(19:56):
Smith had a history of abuse atthe hands of her husband, which included
physical, emotional, and psychological mistreatment. But her defense was that Smith that
she had endured years of abuse athis hands and it culminated in the moment
where she feared for her life,leading to her fatally shooting him in self
defense, you know, and thatself defense argument is one that you have

(20:21):
to make. And go back towhat we were talking about earlier, the
nuances of the introduction of evidence duringthe court case in trial and whether you
can convince either a judge and ebench trial or the jury in a jury
trial that there's some doubt. Therewas an FBI agent when I was an
agent at the academy going through adivorce. But at the same time I

(20:42):
was going through my divorce, andhe went home one day for lunch.
Now I was at the FBI Academyfor a long time, Carlos, I
rarely wore my gun when I wason duty. I mean if I was,
because you're at the FBI Academy,it's an educational institution. You're surrounded

(21:03):
by cops. Those are your studentsare either cops or new agent wannabes.
Right, That really not. It'spretty secure and there's a police force protecting
the academy. So a lot oftimes I would take my gun. If
I was wearing it to the academy, I'd put it in my drawer and
that's where it would stay all day, and I would take it out going
home. This particular agent decided tocarry his gun home. Now he was

(21:30):
separated from his wife, they weregoing through a divorce, and he went
to his house during his lunchtime andallegedly, well, the evidence shows that
at least the evidence accepted by thecourt was that they got into an argument
altercation, she grabbed a knife spontaneously, came at him with a knife,
and he took his pistol and shother twice in the chest, killed her.

(21:55):
He was brought on trial. Itwas a mistrial I think once or
or twice a bench trial. Hewas tried again, I think the third
time, and he was acquitted andthe defense was in all cases was self
defense, that she had come atit. I often wonder what would have
happened if he hadn't had his servicepistol with him. And most women are

(22:22):
much now. She might have gottenhim with the knife. Who knows,
but I would have And I'm notgonna play arm check quarterback, but I
just wonder what would happen if youhadn't had the pistol. I never,
for the record, carried my gunwhen I was in close contact with my
ex wives, not that I didn'ttrust my emotions. I wonder if you

(22:45):
was suspicious or just didn't take itoff, or as one of these guys
that carries around. Do you knowa lot of guys that carried their guns
around? Yeah? I know thereare a lot of agents that carry their
weapons everywhere they go. There area few that might carry too so,
but it depends on out on whatthey do and what they work. I
carried mine my service weapon when Iwas in the field all the time.

(23:07):
But there are certain areas where Iyou know, you make a calculation a
choice whether to carry a weapon.There are times I would go to the
grocery store without my gun. Therewere times often that I would go to
the pool or beach. I'm notcarrying my gun. You make it,
You make a determination, you knowwhen it's appropriate and not. My advice

(23:29):
is you can't shoot a gun youdon't have. And if you're in a
vall situation with a wife who you'reprotracted negotiations through a divorce, probably not
a good idea to carry a weapon. But this incident happened and I think
in Santa Monica. Again, thisis not advocating to carry a gun at
the beach, but it was weirdbecause there was a guy running around shooting

(23:51):
people at the beach. I thinkit was either Miami or Kata Monica,
and somebody the beach cars took outhis guy and neutralize the subject. But
it was kind of interesting. It'slike, really, guns at the beach.
You just don't think about it.Yeah, you know, I I
on my Instagram feed. You getstuff. I don't even know how some
of the stuff I even get,but you know, you get I get
this police incident, oh channel,and I it just comes on, you

(24:18):
know, so this morning I getit and it's a road rage incident.
I don't know how this was evenvideotaped, but I think he was a
twenty nine year old male. Ibelieve it was in Indiana or Illinois road
rage. Gets out of his car. He's got a gun at his side,
goes up to the truck, startsyelling and screaming, puts the gun
in his left hand. About thetime the driver shoots him twice in the

(24:41):
head and neck. Dead gun ski. I mean, I don't know what
else you would do. The guyputs a gun at you. Well,
yeah, but that's I mean,we make the Second Amendment argument, and
you know, you know, badguys carry gun, good guys carry and
this piggle in case. This guyhad just been married and was no no
criminal history, and but both gunsare when you're available, you're gonna get

(25:07):
right. That's so I'm not makinga judgment right wrong. I'm not suggesting
that this guy was wrong to shoothim and didn't have self defense. I'm
just simply stating what I saw.If this had happened, they might have
gotten out and beat each other up. Who knows, they might have strangled
each other. But uh, youknow, in this particular case right there
for the world to see. Uhand and uh that's kind of the weird

(25:32):
thing about this world now is alot of people try to get to the
upper hand, whether it's a gunor an iron rod, a baseball bad
We saw that the other day.It's well, it's just I think we
you and I had this conversation earliertoo. I think there's a diminished value
of human uh existence. And Ithink, you know, becoming more callous

(25:52):
and in our opinions and uh andour behaviors. I'm starting to wonder if
it's finally caught by things that weused to think would cause it, you
know, our watching of horror movies, watching of TV crime shows, but
it wasn't so prevalent forty years ago. And now I don't think I don't
want to get too far off topic, but I think that humans we go

(26:15):
through a cycle and if you go, I'm watching you know, Game of
Thrones spin off, the House ofDragons, and of course it's not history,
but it is historic that people didsome very awful things during the you
know, fifteen sixteenth century against otherhumans. We are, we have the

(26:36):
capacity to be very inhumane to oneanother, and then culturally it becomes unacceptable.
And so when it's unacceptable, thenthe pattern of behavior changes. And
we can see this through various eras, and now we're going through an era
where it's very culturally acceptable to insultother people that if we see our leaders

(26:59):
doing that, it's okay, sowe can do it too. And you
know, we all have an opinionbecause we can all get on and have
a podcast and we can all tellthe world exactly what we think, even
if we have nearly one brain celloperating, synaps firing. So we all
have an opinion, even if itmeans nothing. Because it there's a scary
pollet came out the other day.It's twenty five percent believe the violence is

(27:22):
justified to get your opinion across orto make your political agenda, which does
back to your point, does notsurprise me at all because we've lost any
sense of decorum and to and it'snot just people, it's institutions as well.
And to me, the more dangerousaspect of what's happening in culture that

(27:45):
may lead to violence, so we'llkeep it in topic, is the erosion
of trust in the institutions we havethat hold our society together. And unless
you have some voice out there thatsays, okay, look, these institutions,
which are the fabric of our morality, our morals, and our moral

(28:07):
code, are important because they determinewhat we determine as humans individuals, what
is right and wrong and how wetreat one another right and if we if
we don't pull back on the reinsthere a little bit and understand that it's
not okay. And well, I'mnot talking progressives or liberals or is it's
don't body shame. If you're fat, you're fat, Okay, lose weight

(28:32):
because it's a health issue. It'snot you're fat because you know you're ugly,
because you're fat, it's because youget diabetes. If you're fat,
I'm fat. I need to loseweight. My doctor told me, if
you call me fat, you're makingan observation. That's all that's not insulting
unless you mean it to be insulting. And that's the problem is that people

(28:52):
say you're fat. They don't mean, hey, you need to you know,
get healthy. They're saying you're anugly fat person. Yeah you this.
I know we only got about tenand topic, but yeah, I
want to bring it back to topic, but keeping keeping off the theme you
just mentioned, and see what yourthoughts are in regards to you said erosion
of truth of institutions, and ifwe apply that to marriages in this case,

(29:18):
as we're talking about domestic violence,erosion of love and erosion of trust
even that partner, what do youthink are you seeing common themes in the
sense of are a lot of thesecases directed towards somebody being selfish, somebody
wanting something like I like the guyyou mentioned a minute ago. I want
this new relationship, but I gotsomething hanging me, hanging me back,

(29:41):
it's keeping me back from having it. So you have this pursuit of pleasure
and you'll do anything to get it. Or is that something I'm so unhappy
I got to get rid of thison happiness, So I'm going to eliminate
and neutralize the threat or is itboth or what do you think? Well,
I can't if selfishness is a isa symptom of narcissism. I can't

(30:02):
think of anything more selfish than stranglingyour eleven year old and nine year old
son and then putting a bullet inthe head of your ex or your wife
so that you can be with yourmistress and live a separate life. That
is the definition of narcissism and selfishness. Now, how selfish are we in
this culture today? I think we'revery selfish. I think we don't think

(30:27):
about society or the collective as muchas we should. And here's the reason.
Is my humble opinion, everybody hasone. There are really three types
of morality. You and I havehad this conversation in the past as well.
Right, the absolute moralists believe inright and wrong, good and evil,

(30:48):
and they often draw their moral codefrom God. God's law is superior
to man's law. So you havethese evangelicals, these religious people, and
they, you know, everything's blackand white terms of right and wrong.
It's right to it's wrong to steal, you know, and so forthtance.
Okay. Then you have the moralrelativists and these people the beast majority of

(31:10):
us. We say, well,it depends if somebody is stealing bread to
feed their family. Stealing is bad, but they're trying to feed their family,
So in that particular case, okay, it deals with social contract issues
and so on. Right, So, a moral relativist means that morality depends

(31:30):
on the circumstance and culture they're in. Then, my favorite, there's the
moral nihilists. These people don't believein right or wrong, or good any
evil. They only believe in winningand losing, winning and losing. If
I were to say where's America today, most of us have given up on

(31:51):
the church. We've given up onthe idea that what's good for the society.
You know, it's okay to stealbread because everybody in society should be
fed. Now, all we giveis crap about is winning and losing,
and we want to be winners.And you're the loser. I'm the winner,
I'm the bigger winner. You're theloser. You're the bigger loser.
Right, So we don't care aboutright or wrong or sin. We don't.

(32:15):
We don't have to ask God forforgiveness. There's no need because as
long as I'm a winner. That'sall it counts. And if I means
that I have to demean you,even if you're my spouse that I want
to you know, get rid of, then I'm going to win this divorce
or I'm going to If that meanskilling you to win the divorce, then

(32:36):
so be it. And it's it'snot even a it's not a passionate thing.
It's not an emotional thing. It'sa very calculated, instrumental thing that
leads us to our ultimate goal ofwinning. And we just have to be
careful because you know, winning shouldbe done with grace and humanity, right,
and if it's otherwise, it's justempty, right. And that's I

(33:00):
think bringing it back to our conversationtoday, I think that there are people
that are in relationships, and wehave a whole different podcast for our audience
to enjoy, the Psychology of Romance, where we talk about elements of relationships.
And I can't think of any marriage, not one Ronald Reagan and Nancy

(33:21):
included. I can't think of anymarriage that has lasted more than seven years
that doesn't have some form of conflict, that doesn't have some form of emotional
evolution. You can't have in Thisis my opinion. I'll be clear.
I don't think you can have arelationship that is passionate from day one to

(33:44):
past ten years. They say seven, so we can use a seven year
itch. Passion has to evolve intosomething much deeper and more meaningful that includes
trust, compassion, loyalty, commitment, and those relationships that cannot transverse that
and go from the passion that youhave in an early relationship to the love,

(34:08):
the deep rooted love of committed relationshipsend up on the pile heap of
divorce or breakups. And that's acalculate oftentimes much more calculated than emotion.
Right. And so when it getsto the point where at seven, ten,
twelve years, you're like, thepassion's not there, but you know

(34:30):
what, I'm hooking up with thisother check and there's a lot of passion,
but I got this big albatross aroundmy neck, this wife and these
two kids. Hmmm, maybe Icould kill them, cashing on the insurance
and then you know, bang thisother good looking chick and start over.
And that is the mindset there,that's a very calculated that's the kind of

(34:53):
mindset that you have with individuals likeChris pullman who who are very narcissistic,
very selfish, uh and very andlack of motion and attached to their criminality.
Yeah, in our world, clinicalworld will look at a lot of

(35:14):
these what we call it's how it'scomplicated because in our world there's so much
debate about the different diagnoses. ButI would say it is probably it's a
personality disorder, a certain personality Distaurerswill have this a lot of interpersonal difficulties.
They don't really care. Right there, attachment, there's an attachment to
them. And you know what it'snot. You hit it right on the
head, doctor, It's it's adisorder. It's a character disorder or social

(35:37):
disorder. Is not a mental illness. These people know right from wrong.
They know they're not they're not insane. They can stop themselves at any time.
But they make a choice and notas you know, I'm a rational
choice theorist, and these people doa calculated choice. Now, they may
not sit down with a pen andpencil and pro and con kill my wife,

(35:58):
not kill my wife, but intheir mind they create this this fanciful
future that doesn't include their their wifeand their kids. And it starts over
like I get a mulligan, andthe damage that they leave in their wake,
not only to the victims, butthe victims' families and to society and

(36:22):
at large is tremendous because we getdesensitized. When I was a kid.
When I was a kid, Iused to watch Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom
and they would have this lion chasingthe antelope or you know, the gazelle

(36:42):
whatever gazelle, and then right asthe line's about to pounce, they would
cut to a commercial. I nevergot to see the kill. They didn't
want you to see that it was. It was they were gonna show Disney
right after. Then fast forward totoday, Not only do I see the
lion catch the gazelle, I seethe lions eating the gazelle from inside out.

(37:04):
I see the gazelle fighting for itslife while they're literally eating it alive.
And so having a little blurred thingon my Instagram saying you know sensitive
content, Well, of course we'rehumans. We want to see, so
we click and then we see that, or we see the guy getting shut
twice in the head, And whatdoes that do to us as a society
long term? Well that was mycomment earlier. Have we just sensive ties

(37:29):
ourselves by the increase of violence becausewe have so much more. As you
mentioned to me, you can goon X and you can see the shooter
the assassinate the I want to tryto assassinate the former president. You can
see the picture of his head blownoff. But it's worse because now you
see memes of his head blown offwith the Huktua girls spitting on him.
Yeah, it's really wild now becausethat would, like you said before,

(37:51):
it was just cut commercial right.Well, hell, even in the old
days it would be like a youshoot somebody and there's never blood, but
it's right. Tell Sam Peckinpah startedputting blood packs in people on the movies
and you saw there. I thinkhe was one of them. But you
know, here's the other thing.Then people say, oh god, it's
you know, it's Hollywood, orit's this or desensitizing. You know,

(38:14):
it's the social media, and itokay, maybe today, maybe in art
era, but it's broader than that. It's bigger than that, because again,
go back to the fifteenth you know, sixteenth century fifteen hundreds, I
guess i'd be fourteenth century fifteen hundredsof sixteen hundreds and you know, was
it Ladimir the Impaler? Oh yeah, the Impaler He did ottomn Turks and

(38:43):
stuck a poll right up there andwrecked them out through their throats and the
HUDs are lining up when people wentto go to dinner to visit him the
leaders. His NATO summit was aninteresting one, right, So yeah,
I mean, listen, there's athe question is is it? Yeah,
you know, here's one of thechallenge to it. But it's just another
observation of that example is that Iknow we're going into really kind of law

(39:06):
and philosophy now, folks. Butthe question I have with that is,
yes, we had had the Impaler, but we also have very limited ability
to write, so you know,you're only going to write what stories stick
out. The question becomes do wehave today more vlad Impaler types compared to
what they had back then? Wedon't have access to that, right with

(39:30):
society much less violent back then comparedto it is today. I know people
compare it to certain wars and peopledie, but there's also much more hand
to hand combat. There's also manymore people on the earth than there were
back in the day, and naturalphenomenon took those people out, and particularly
the illness, I mean, themubonic plague took those people out, and

(39:52):
I think that resets society, right, And we had a reset, sort
of a reset back in twenty twentywith COVID, right, crimes went down,
people were trying to think more communitybased and community orient and then that
that we broke through that because wedon't have the same situation we had with
COVID back pre you know, twentytwenty thereabouts. Who knows where it's going

(40:12):
to end, but I know this, there's a cycle, and we have
we haven't gotten to the bottom yet, and it may take World War three,
it may take those types of calamitiesworldwide, another pandemic. Here's you
know, it's funny. We're inthe middle of the Olympics. I haven't
watched one thing of the Olympics,the Summer Olympics. Right, Yeah,

(40:37):
you got to find the channel nowadays, right, But there was a time
that the Olympics brought the United Statestogether, regardless of party in religion.
Now we're way off topic, butthe point is that the Olympics were a
time for the nation to come togetheras one. Now we need a nine
to eleven for that to happen,right, the only time that happens.

(40:58):
We're so divided, does that Imean, it's what is me? The
world's ending? No, it's we'regoing through a cycle, and oftentimes to
bring it back home. It ismore indicative of a small blimp in history
and not something that's more pervasive orthat's going to last much longer. These
cases that we're talking about are alltoo common, but I don't know that

(41:21):
they are any more common historically.Even political violence, and we were talking
about remember Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton, the vice the city and vice president
at the time, there's like eighteenoh something eight or whatever. Alexander Hamilton
was the Secretary of the Treasury.They challenged each other to a duel.

(41:42):
These are freaking politicians. Could youimagine that today? Right? And they
went out in New Jersey. Theypast it off and Burr shot Hamilton in
the in the chest or stomach.He lasted a day or two and he
died. Right, That's how theysettled political There were no ballots. It
was all bullets. And so whenwe look at today's environment, we said,
boy, we're changing now. Unfortunatelywe're regressing. We're going back and

(42:07):
revisiting the more basic, vile aspectsof human behavior, and those were rejected.
Those behaviors were rejected in the past, and they'll be rejected again.
But this generation has to exhibit,you know, and learn that, and
we transition back, you know,because there's a juxtaposition of these We Trician

(42:29):
go back to relationships. And thereused to be a very well accepted and
regarded standard for monogamy that when youwere married, you were married for life.
That there was it was almost abusiness path. My mother I once
asked her, do you and dadhave passion? We're married sixty five years,

(42:52):
son, we love each other.What are you talking about passion?
Right? Because pre nineteen sixty theroles were very defined. Husband was the
breadwinner. The mother stayed home.Mother, you know, knows best and
she would be with you know,like June Kleaver. The nineteen sixties,
women were told and they should theyare. They were told they equals in

(43:13):
every respect and so they can havetheir cake and eat it too. You
could be superwoman at a house andyou can be a career woman as well.
And not only that, but youcan have the BFF of your life.
Your husband could be your best friend, your ride and die your first
kiss as your last kiss, andalso be your passionate rock and roll guy.

(43:37):
And that's very difficult to have yourcake and eat it too, and
so we but culturally we were taughtthis. Now this generation, the millennials
and the gen xers, they're intoeen M. You know what n M
is, right, Ethical non monogamyNM polygamy right, some groups are yeah,

(44:02):
yeah, but it's becoming more culturallyacceptable this And again it's not a
progressive thing. It's not a conservativething. It is a mindset, you
know. And and part of thatis, hey, everybody do your thing.
And I think you can trace itback to the sixties and the cultural
revolution as their own thing, postmodernism and social constructivism, where everything is

(44:25):
moral laws or what you want itto be. It's what's moral to you
is moral, and what's right toyou is right. Most of us,
most of us are somewhere in themiddle of that. We understand that yes,
I can have my way, butI also have to give to the
collective. I can't be selfish.But we're talking about in these cases are
people who have gone to the extreme, These narcissists who believe that you know

(44:49):
what, I'm so more I'm somuch more special than my wife and my
two kids that I can strangle themand kill her and go off with my
mistress and start my life in you. How does he in any way?
I think his life is more valuablethan the three lives he took, but
he made rationalize that. This couldbe an interesting conversations. I'm getting read

(45:09):
to wrap up for another show,but you are my final thoughts. Of
course you can have yours as well, but my final thoughts would be interesting.
Is you're touching on a point.I don't know if I necessarily see
it as narcissism, but what Ido see it as is the danger that
I do see a lot in criminalactivity. And what can scare most people

(45:29):
is that dark shadow inside of us. All is the ability to rationalize behavior.
Whether as an individuals or a collective, you can rationalize behavior. This
is right for me. I needto do this. It's my life.
I die and it's over, soI'm going to stop whatever is stopping me
from getting what I want because whenI die, it's over, so I
should take care of me first.In rationalization is a very dangerous component to

(45:53):
our behavior because it's also it's alsointrinsically human to rationalize in it decisions.
And so as a rational behavior therapistsor a therapist specialist, I look at
humans making their decisions and based onthose modes that we've talked about, so

(46:14):
rational rational and rationalization are a littlethere's a distinction there, right. Rationalization
is like I want to take thisstapler for my company because they're worth a
billion dollars. They're not going tocare, but that's technically stealing. You're
committing a misdemeanor. And you rationalizeit to that all of a sudden,
that I should take this because it'sa bike and I need a bike because

(46:35):
I can only walk and I needto get to work. Well, that's
not again, irrationalize something. RationalChoice is that process of rationalizing what your
decision is going to be. Andto that extent, I think, going
back to our conversation, what we'vepermeated, what's permeated through our culture is
this sense of entitlement and that hasresulted in selfishness, not necessarily narcissism.

(47:00):
And I'm not you know, suggestingclinically that these people are narcissists. However,
they exhibit narcissistic behavior in terms oftheir selfishness and their processing, their
cognitive processing of rationalizing their choices.What may seem irrational to me may be
normative to you. Right, So, may I see somebody getting out of

(47:21):
the car with a gun and yellingat some stranger in the road, and
that's irrational. But not to theperson who got out of their car with
the gun, who rationalized, Hey, I'm going to get out in this
car and threaten the shit out ofthis guy. At least at that time,
it wasn't to him that the reasonis what we're talking about today in
our podcast. This emotional base andthis and this intellectual cognitive base. Right,

(47:47):
This collectivism, the group versus theindividualism myself, and these elements when
they're in play, can lead toa number of rationalizations that ultimately lead to
a murder, including the relationship betweenthe victim and the perpetrator, the evidence,

(48:08):
the type of evidence that you seeat these crime scenes, and some
of the other things I wanted tomention that we're going to run out of
time on rationalizing, too, isresolving the internal conflict we have with some
moral discrepancy. Right, we havea moral issue with what we're doing,
so we're going to rationalize to eliminatethat internal conflict. And I think that

(48:29):
there are those who you know,have cascading decisions. Is a great show
concluding this particular episode. There's agreat show I just finished on Netflix called
Your Honor, which starts with apoor decision and then cascades and yeah it

(48:51):
was based on but yeah, hetries to help his son protect his son,
which is an altruistic kind of motive. Right, He's benevolently trying to
protect his son, but by doingso, he has to tell a lie,
and then that lie becomes a secondlie, third lie leads to another
person's death, then three or fourother people's death, and then leads to

(49:13):
the you know, I won't givethe show away, but it shows the
type of slippery slope that we canfind ourselves on, as we now conclude
as a culture, when we startnormalizing these rational processes of selfishness leading to
what's good for Andy, his bestwinning. As long as Andy wins,

(49:35):
he's okay. And if you're theloser, you're a loser, right,
And when that happens, God lovedthis country, right, God bless the
United States, when we're all individualsseeking our own individual needs and our pleasures
at the cost of everyone else.I've always found the philosophy of law and
the philosophy of psychology, when youlook at it, it's really interesting,

(49:58):
and I think it's great to lookat because I think it illustrates, not
only to myself and to others aswell, the complexity of life and the
nuance that's involved. You cannot gointo binary thinking of this or that.
It's very dangerous to do that.Even your comment about altruism and reminded me
of ayn Rand and when she usedto say, is altruism really altruism?
Isn't that just being selfish because itbrings you pleasure in some sort? Right,

(50:21):
I'm going to donate money to tenmillion dollars, but it's still giving
you pleasure. I used to irritatemy mom. I used to tell my
mom. Humans are all self interested, but the extremes are selfishness and selflessness.
Very few of us are selfless,and very few of us are selfish.
Mother Teresa, mother tersa you woulddefine as being selfless was still and

(50:44):
her altruism was looking at a greaterbenefit, which is life eternal in heaven.
Right, So if I give thislife to these lepers of Calcutta,
God will reward me for life eternal. So that's a pretty good deal,
right. And it's the same mindsetthat a young Palestinian boy might have when
he blows himself up, because he'slike, he's indoctrinated that if he gives

(51:06):
his life up as a martyr hereon earth, he gets to live forever
in paradise. Antike particles family alot of times too. And you know,
Saint Francis not to compare the twomother Teresa and a Palestinian blowing himself
up, but the motive and mindsetand the cognitive process rationalization is similar.
And what's interesting too is we lookat these cases and we try to figure

(51:29):
them out, and I honestly,I couldn't rationalize personally. I could not
rationalize giving my life up to servicinglepers in Calcutta anymore than I could strapping
a bomb to my chest and yellingyou know, or killing your own children,
or killing my own children, orkilling myself. Those are things that

(51:51):
just you know, again, we'renot talking about vast majority of people.
We're talking about these these cases areunique and that therefore interesting because they're But
what's not unique is, and youand I want to continue this conversation,
is the factors at play in ourculture today that are desensitizing the collective and
allowing for us to think in termsof winning and losing versus good and bad

(52:16):
or right and wrong. And that'sa dangerous slippery slope at least in this
era that we live in. Absolutelythink that's a good place to stop.
Folks, Thanks again for listening.Hey, put your thoughts in there.
It's a complicated topic. I knowwe kind of veered off a little bit,
but we brought it into the philosophyof law, which is inherited into
a lot of the cases that wediscussed today. So make sure you share,

(52:37):
subscribe hit that I like. Butyou know we like it. Do
we like it because we're selfish?Well that's a question for another day.