The Human Behavior Podcast
Do you ever wonder why people act the way that they do? Join human behavior experts Brian Marren and Greg Williams as they discuss all things human behavior related. Their goal is to increase your Advanced Critical Thinking ability through a better understanding of HBPR&A (Human Behavior Pattern Recognition & Analysis.) What is HBPR&A? It's a scientific (and fun) way to understand and articulate human behavior cues so that you can predict likely outcomes and it works regardless of your race, religion, political ideology or culture!
The Human Behavior Podcast
Unmasking Intent
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
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
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/
Hello everyone and welcome to the Human Behavior Podcast.
Speaker 1: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 explored the arrest of an 18-year-old under new mask ban law, doubling in 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 the 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 enjoyed 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'd kindly ask that you leave this review and, more importantly, please share it with a friend. Thank you for your time and don't forget that training changes behavior.
Speaker 1:Hello everyone and welcome to the human behavior podcast. Well, I almost almost messed up my intro here, greg. Welcome to you. Greg Got a new little setup, little audio setup for myself, so hopefully it sounds a little bit better. Thank you to those who have reached out with feedback. I actually very much appreciate it because when I was going through this and the way I listened to the podcast was coming through my computer and I didn't always listen to it through headphones, so I didn't realize that there were some audio issues. So for those of you did reach out and say something, thank you so much. Any feedback we get from everyone is always very much welcome.
Speaker 1:So today, what we're going to be talking about is a case out of the East Coast, from New York, where someone is. You know, the suburban New York police make first arrests under new law banning face masks. So I'll put the link in the in the episode details. But I do want to hit some of this because there's a lot we can talk about here within this case and actually even the way it's written. There's a lot we can talk about. But so this is literally just happened, I think over the last weekend.
Speaker 1:But the police responded to a call of a suspicious person. Police responded to a call of a suspicious person. So they go up, they detain this man because he's wearing black clothing and a black ski mask that covered his face except for his eyes. So like old school, like 1980s, like movie face, like criminal bad guy, like literally black face 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 guy can't get his mask right. But so he important part of the story.
Speaker 1:The department said the 18 year old displayed other suspicious behavior, including attempting to conceal a large bulge in his waistband and refusing to comply with officer's command. So that's actually a very important part of the story too. So the officers say the bulge turned out to be a 14 inch knife and he was placed under arrest without further incident. He was arraigned Monday, um, on charges of criminal possession of a weapon and obstructing governmental administration. And, but you know the the he's also going to face a misty meter violation of the face mask law in the coming days. They said so they haven't, I guess, charged them with it yet. They're going to figure out how to charge them with it. But they said, you know, and people signed this mask ban into law are saying, hey, this rule is working. But what they're saying is you know, our police officers were able to use the mask ban legislation as well, as well as other factors which is a very important statement to stop and interrogate an individual who is carrying a weapon with the intent to engage in robbery.
Speaker 1:Um, so it. And what he's saying is this law gave police another tool to stop this dangerous criminal. Of course, uh, now he's got some some representation. Um, you know the police are saying you know the law was. And administrators, uh, you know the different elected officials saying the law gives police the very least reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop. And then, um, let me see, make sure I got everything, then they can forcibly stop someone in new york state if they're suspected of committing a felony or penal law misdemeanor, which is where this new law falls, all important parts.
Speaker 1:And then you know um, the legal aid society is representing this guy said there's no basis to believe that wearing a face mask was intended to conceal identity or criminal behavior and if that was the base of the stop. Guy said there's no basis to believe that wearing a face mask was intended to conceal identity or criminal behavior and if that was the base of the stop, I believe there's basis to conclude the stop was unlawful. So this is kind of the big parts of the case and there's there's a lot we can get into here. Greg. I'll throw to you before I get into anything. But all of these points are important. The face mask law is interesting to me, are important. The face mask law is interesting to me. I guess these police offices are going to be quite busy coming up the end of October ruining Halloween celebrations if it's a mask law violation. But first let's start this. Why are we going over this case with the listeners?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So there's two sides to the caper the side that says this is yet another ploy, an end run, a reach around for the Constitution, and then the other ones that say no, it makes absolute sense. So there's historical preference. First, for anybody that just crawled out of a cave, probable cause is the minimum legal standard to apply for a search warrant or an arrest warrant. And probable cause means that, based on what you're seeing, experience or perceiving, that another random, reasonable person observing those same factors would also believe that a crime has been committed, was going to be committed or was in progress. So now that we know that, okay, you gave us facts on both sides, both arguments. But you said they had an RP, a reporting party, the coppers. They observed a person in the dark wearing dark clothes in a high crime area that was waste aware. Do you see what I'm trying?
Speaker 2:to say those things are called probable cause.
Speaker 1:Those are artifacts and evidence to support probable cause yeah, or at least reasonable suspicion, at least.
Speaker 2:Right, but I think that the group of them together and then wearing a mask was plenty for them to go up and do a contact, and a contact is a street interview.
Speaker 1:Oh, absolutely yeah.
Speaker 2:So an interrogation again and I'm just bashing on the people that write articles. An interrogation means custody applied, that the person is in custody and he's not free to leave. And now you're asking pointed questions about why were you there? What was it? The street interview is hey, what's up? And the guy is not following commands and they see that he's waste of wear and they pat him down, which they have the absolute right to, and he's got a weapon. So that's plenty Now. So that's plenty.
Speaker 2:Now, where did mask laws come from? It wasn't COVID and most people you know we joked Brian many times about. You'll never be able to use that 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 Ku Klux Klan was attacking and lynching people. Those laws have perfect precedence historical, when you're talking about a riot or insurrection, or in the performance of a crime.
Speaker 2:I think it should be added there yeah, but saying that, hey, that person's wearing a mask, that's enough a misdemeanor to create PC. I think it circumvents a whole lot of stages.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:That you should should meet, don't you?
Speaker 1:so. So that's that's kind of my sort of rub with it, and I mean this one. It appears from the other facts of the case that he was. You know there was something going on here and they intervened and probably likely, you know, prevented maybe a home invasion or, you know, armed robbery or whatever. But but, um, it's when you, when you, it's like when we talk about body language and stuff too, it's like if you're starting with this one thing and then working your way back, I think you're getting yourself into 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's the face mask, or of said item. So in this case it's the, it's the face mask.
Speaker 1:You know, now, even with that are there different types because of you know, it's not like a medical one where you see people wearing, you know, especially if they're in public a lot and they're sick or they don't want to get sick, right, that's very different than you know, the, the type of mask he's wearing, and I, I get, get that. But it's this reliance on, on an item or a thing, um, that I have the problem with because it's the, the intent behind it is so much more important because even look, look in there one. Obviously the police were called to the scene. Some person, member of the public, thought that this person was acting suspiciously. Ok, so that's already, we're already starting there. He's wearing, you know, all black and, looking at, he's attempting to conceal something.
Speaker 1:At this point the mask is irrelevant, I think. But now, now it adds weight to this person is attempting to conceal themselves for some purpose. Obviously, because a mask does, especially the type he was wearing. Conceal themselves for some purpose, obviously because a mask does, especially the type he 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. You're relying on an actual physical object versus the totality of the circumstances, the, the intent behind it and someone's actual behavior. Because I mean, again it goes to the Halloween argument, like I'm testing out my new Halloween, you know costume for this year. You know, I don't know, we're getting to that time of year, it's two months away. So you know what I mean.
Speaker 2:Like what are you supposed to do here Exactly? So listen.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2:Let me depose you briefly to show the folks that might not work in law enforcement or corrections all the time how PC probable cause works. So, Brian, you work out. Have you ever had a run or a jog, whatever you want to call it, as part of your workout? Yeah, definitely more of a jog now, do you choose specific clothing for that run or that workout?
Speaker 1:yes, knowing that you're going to be doing that movement, you're going to pick a certain type of short or shoes or whatever to make it more comfortable or more? Yeah, to perform better, more optimally.
Speaker 2:And if you're going to pick a certain type of short or shoes or whatever to make it more comfortable or more, yeah, to perform better, more optimally and if you're going to be outside of the gym and perhaps crossing roads or streets, do you have any high visibility or reflective things on that clothing?
Speaker 1: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 the safety issue, like someone could just run right into you, especially early morning or late night times, like where people you know it's less, you're not as easily seen.
Speaker 2:You're spot on, and that's exactly what an attorney would do with any person and depose them on the stand and say it's reasonable to assume that if it's low light, you're going to wear something so you don't get hit by a car. You get what I'm trying to say. So here's how we establish probable cause. This person wasn't Okay. And then when somebody says hi, I'm a police officer, can you come over here and talk for a moment? Well, unless the person has a learning disability or can't hear you, uh, or some other reason, you see how that works disability or can't hear you, or some other reason you see how that works.
Speaker 2:There's all those factors that we're talking about. It's like a recipe. It's like okay, one person taught me a great thing about cooking a long time ago Don't put all your spices in at the beginning, because certain spices wear out before the food's done. So that's why you can't put like you know. You can put salt at the beginning and pepper at the beginning. You can't. You often can use too much because it doesn't wear out. But there's many other spices that you have to put in just before you serve or at the halfway point, because if you don't, they'll get watered down and they're forgotten. So it's a waste of time.
Speaker 2:But if you take a look at the recipe for probable cause, it's all of those spices and when you put them in that make the difference. And so you know the cops getting the call, that's huge. It's on view or plain view or open view completely different standard. And what were they suspicious about? Well, they're investigating crime. They're investigating maybe a person that's lost. Well, if a person's a criminal or they're lost, okay, there's a different reaction when you go up and first contact them. So I think here that there's a certain like Brian, you and I travel more than anybody we know than I know, and I'm always at the airport sitting with people wearing masks, and it is a medical mask. So if the guy was wearing a medical mask on that night, would they have excluded him? Do you see what I'm trying to say? Even the term mask is so vague to me.
Speaker 1:Here, and here's why we're discussing this and why this is important. Right, because when we talk about conducting predictive analysis and intervening sooner and preventing something from happening, obviously, especially in a situation like this, there's there's some legal issues with that and this stuff is always going back and forth. Like a lot of people don't like the concept of a pretext stop or I. You know, I saw you commit a traffic infraction, but I think something else is going on, so I'm going to pull you over for that traffic infraction. You know the Supreme Court has held up this, this kind of stuff. It comes out in the media and the news a lot and there's these discussions as well. You're only stopping people because of this and you shouldn't be able to do that and it's like well, but that's how we prevent people from or that's how we lock up people that have outstanding warrants. That's how we prevent future things from happening. That's how we prevent this from escalating. That's how we get dope off the streets. That's how we get. I mean, you're it.
Speaker 1:It gives this appearance of, or people think it's like some legal gray area, because in the in in the past too, it has been used to harass people or or do something wrong, right, the harass people or do something wrong, right, the problem with it is, it's not, it's seemingly subjective. So therefore people go well, it's going to be misapplied. But really any law or any statute or any power or authority that anyone has over another has the potential to be misapplied. So there's always a cost benefit 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're allowed to do, like, I mean, that's always, that's a constant debate in any democratic, you know, free society that those things are always going to come 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 personal rights, you're giving up your personal freedoms because you're allowed to be searched in order for the general, the greater safety of everyone else. So that's a constant right, uh, argument. It's a constant discussion in the background in any functioning democracy. So you have that element and then 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, I pulled you over because you had a broken taillight. He's like, well, I don't have the money to fix it. It's like, okay, but that doesn't mean that now I can have the discretion and not give you a ticket, because this is, you know, it has. You're not committing any other act, but but it allows me access to see if there's anything else going on here, because I have some other suspicion that maybe some other crime is. And when you get down to that, this is the problem too with different policies and different laws.
Speaker 1:It's easy to pass the law, it's easy for this court to decide something, it's easy for the Supreme Court justices to write an opinion and and and decide on something. But the reason why there's still constant cases is because when the application at the individual local level it gets, it gets complex and it is a case by case basis. And this case was immediately interesting to me when you sent it because of that, because it's like, oh, we made a basis. And this case was immediately interesting to me when you sent it because of that, because it's like, oh, we made a law against the mask. And it becomes about the mask. It's like, well, even just look at what they said, and look at the initial reports and look at how 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 the it's, it's uh, you know a nice, by the way cherry on top.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, it really is. It's the sprinkles on top of the cupcake. Like you, you already had everything, all the elements here, and it was this person was likely doing about to commit a crime, and so obviously you can't you can't charge someone for a crime that they didn't commit, which is why you have these certain laws of what he was doing. I think it was the weapons charge, uh, because it was a concealed weapon. And then the other one was what was it like? I forget, but disruption or interference of governmental procedures, which is such a general thing. I mean, that's like in the military, at the UCMJ, when they go, ah, general article. It's like, wait, what are you charging me with General article? It's like, wait, what are you charging me with General article? It's like but, but uh, now, now, this is the hard part, the prosecution and and, and.
Speaker 1:It's almost like easier for the defense to say, hey, I was just walking down the street, there's nothing wrong with that, but this is a great case to show. It's like, no, no, it goes from some member of the community being curious with their environment all the way to have find this interesting. Hey, this is anomalous, hey, this is, you know, reasonable suspicion, this is probable cause, while we got something. So that's why I like this case when you send it to me. So, so it goes right from the beginning of everything all the way up that escalation to um, to there was now we can charge this person with a crime and all of the different you know, personal freedom, civil liberties, uh, government over all this stuff is sort of like in here in this case, which is why I loved it when you said it. So, so I I think there's a lot we can, more even we can get into with this. So, um, like what, what, what else are the, the sort of big elements here that that we want people to know about?
Speaker 2:Well, the first one that I would add to, by the way, to unpack, I had to write a bunch of stuff down while you were talking. And remember, folks, we talk stream of consciousness, so you should write that down too, so you can ask, follow on questions or read the article and then come back to us, because you know, when you're talking at a rate like this, there's some things that fall under the rug and we don't want them to.
Speaker 1:So one of the things that.
Speaker 2:Brian brought up that was great, is about the law. Well, this law seems to me, on its face, to be unconstitutionally broad and anytime something is too broad, it has to be narrowed.
Speaker 2:So sooner or later the courts will catch on and narrow it. But what we could do is we could lose some good cases in the meantime, because what will happen is they'll throw out the evidence and evidentiary value is hugely important and convictions. So then the second part of that is that you don't want to have a law on the books that feels unscrupulous and any time that you lack intent. So when? I'll give you an example. You and I have both seen mugshots over the years where people took a magic marker and covered their face. Or people took face paint or camouflage paint and covered their face. Well, technically, that's a mask of some kind. You're masking something. Well, if you're masking your intentions, that's a mask of some kind.
Speaker 2:You're masking something. Well, if you're masking your intentions, that's important to me. If you're wearing a mask because you're a magician, that doesn't demonstrate intent.
Speaker 1:Yeah, again, the unconsciously broad. Well, there is intent behind that, but the intent is part of the act and the entertainment versus, of course. Why do you feel the need to hide something?
Speaker 2:Is criminal intent present? Because if it's not, then you can't just going on a fishing expedition over and over and remember and I love New York and I've got no problem with coppers and people go why are you bashing cops? I'm not, I'm bashing bad laws and bad cops. And these aren't bad cops. They're doing what they were told to do. But remember, there was a time when we were doing broken windows and broken windows were great because we found people that were jumping turnstiles.
Speaker 2:New York said look, if you fix a broken window, you're going to fix the problem. If you clean up graffiti, if you mow a lawn, you're going to move off the ne'er-do-wells because they're not going to want to operate in that AO anymore. And you know folks read it. It's a great study and it did do a lot of good.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's a whole policy, yeah.
Speaker 2: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 that means they don't follow rules in other places and they don't pay for their tickets and they don't show up for court. But just recently, a few days ago, the Denver PD came down and Governor Polis in Colorado and some other people piled on and said we're no longer going to stop people for small vehicle infractions. Okay, so is speeding a small one, is a taillight out, is a headlight out? And now if you're talking about a safety violation and that person pops a curb and kills my kid, how are you going to handle the lawsuit that comes from that?
Speaker 2:And you brought up again we go backwards a little bit you brought up that people that don't take care of their car sometimes are shit people that also have warrants. Now there's the other half of the street, like you and I, that don't make enough money sometimes to go in immediately. And you know, uh, get that that alternator updated so the lights were down, my batteries out and stuff. And you know what. Cops are given discretion on that letter of the law, spirit of the law, where they can give you a maintenance violation and you get so much time to fix it so you don't have to pay a fine, or they can give you a courtesy warning which means, hey, get that fixed, you can't drive on the street without it, see.
Speaker 2:So the law is like that. You know wonderful boat on the ocean where it's rocking and it's taking the waves they anticipated. These things are going to happen and there's precedent. So, on the mask, if you could show me that it's a higher likelihood that during post-COVID America, a mask is going to lead to some person committing a crime or being involved in insurrection? I think it's the opposite. I think if you show up for a riot and you're wearing a mask, it's an additional charge.
Speaker 2:I think if you commit a robbery and you were wearing a mask during the robbery, it's an additional charge, just like the weapons offense and all those other things, but I think as standalone PC, if that's the only thing you got. Remember the photo that we showed in class about those people walking in a bank and they were all wearing masks.
Speaker 1:Yeah, with the masks, yeah.
Speaker 2: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 argument will and continues to be that it's unconstitutionally broad and it needs a left and right lateral limit and a limit of advance, and I think temporally, where it falls in the probable cause, timeline is important. Okay, so let's say that you were driving down the street and it draws your attention to those people Absent other factors. Brian, would you still have made that stop? If, if, if, the the only thing that you're making that stop on is the physical mask itself, then I think you've got a shaky house anyway.
Speaker 1:I think you need more or situational awareness or this, and it's like you're relying on this, what, what is an arbitrary standard or arbitrary observation? Because, lacking any sort of contextual cues, like you can't just point to one thing, or I mean, you know, unless it's so obvious, right, okay, the guy's putting the nose cone into the rpg, yeah it's like there's.
Speaker 1:No, there's only one reason why you do that like and so so it doesn't need to be named, it doesn't need to be called something because it's so blatantly obvious. So anytime you point to stuff like this, it's like the what, why, and part of the reason why I want to talk about this is this is why, like we, we have our terms like um, actually a shout out to todd fox he reached out with a question about something with me the other day, but they ended up spurring a great conversation about urban masking and social camouflage and and why we give these things names. So, like what he's doing is is like urban masking, and that mask is used to literally as urban masking, to kind of try to hide Right or not be seen or hide his identity and maybe as a story or a reason for social camouflage that he's using. But the idea is, like we, we use those terms not to to because they're they're broad and they can fit any context. Meaning, you know it, fast forward to october 31st. All of these same observations. Now there's like no weight to it, they're completely average, from from the call to what he's wearing to what he's doing Like it's, it's almost me. So a simple change of the date and the contextual part of it, like, would completely change the case, and so so I think a lot of people don't really understand, and which is why we have these types of laws. It's because of lack of understanding of even what. What is meant by the totality, the circumstances and all of the observations and that's what we focus on.
Speaker 1:Right Is all of those cues that are happening. What is the setting, what is the scene, what? And for this one too, it's like you can do a simple what if? Game. You know, I'm seeing this person. Well, what, what, okay, a lot of times, people if, especially, maybe it's the old, you know, angry guy down the street who thinks everyone's up to something. Let's say he's the one that calls in on this guy and sees him like, oh, he thinks everyone's doing something bad. It's like okay, um, but what else could this person be doing? What other reason would there be to be dressed in all black with a mask on it, like, what other purpose is there? And once you kind of look at it that way, it's like OK, like people, go down this wall, you could be up to anything you could have. It's like, no, you're that's. That's so unlikely. What are the likely reasons giving today, at this time, what this person is doing? What are the other likely things that it could be? And then it starts to narrow down, sort of well, wait a minute, there's there's not a lot of things that this person could be doing there. There is no other reason to be here in this area. And everyone does a. Well, you know they could just be passing through. It's like, yeah, but humans don't do that.
Speaker 1:Everything you do is done for a reason. You have goal oriented behavior and intent behind something, like the only people who don't. It's like obviously severe, or you know some sort of mental health issue or you know where. You know you see, like the schizophrenic person wandering down the street, bouncing off the walls and talking so there's no, there's nothing there there. Because there's nothing there there. There's no, there is no intent behind anything. Um, but that's so rare and it's so obvious when you see that, whereas everyone else falls into this, so so it's like 99% of people we're talking about here fall into this you go and do something for a reason. So I just is again. You know it's a.
Speaker 1:It's a great way to look at all of these. Is not the item itself, and that's what. What kind of gets me about the way everyone talks about this stuff. It's like, well, they had a knife on them. It's like, okay, I have a pocket knife on me. What does that mean? Like, well, they had this. And then you just take these little one items and try to come up with a story behind it. It's like, no, come up with the story and then see how the items fit, like, like, look at what their story is and then go, okay, well, does this fit with what they're doing? Does this fit with what they're with their? Uh, how they're dressed and the reason to be here and the time of day and the items they have with them. That's when you see the incongruence. And it's like everyone sort of seemingly does it the opposite way. Does that kind of make sense, greg?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So I love that you brought that up, because let's just do a quick run back to the likelihood scale. So, historical perspective how many times do I bring that up? So you are a copper in this area and in the 13 years, 33 years, three months that you've worked in this area, you've never encountered a person with a mask committing a crime, or you've often noted that when you contacted a person wearing a mask, they were in commission of a crime or whatever. The answer is so. So when, when I talked to a person and they jammed their hands down in their front pocket, uh, uh, in 75% of the cases that I was on, it always meant they were concealing drugs or narcotics or paraphernalia. Okay, whatever that is. That's how you build probable cause. You know, that's how you. You predict what's likely coming next and the explanatory storyline doesn't come from you. It's an argument I had with Mooney and Van D. You know well, so many possibilities. Well, there's not so many possibilities. Well, the possibilities are endless.
Speaker 2:They're not endless possibilities.
Speaker 1:No, they're not, they're finite.
Speaker 2:Right. So if you lift your left foot, you're likely going to put that foot down at some point in the near future. Okay, if you lift your left foot, you're likely going to put that foot down at some point in the near future.
Speaker 2:OK, so it's how you're looking at the information. If you say, well, not enough information, you're not looking hard enough, and that's your job. And your job is to measure things against the baseline for behavior that everybody does in that same situation. So now this guy I've seen him in the dark walk back and forth three or four times and every time a car comes by he steps into the darkness, you know, and is 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 this person is a suffering albino vampire, you get what I'm saying with pin with him. Okay, what? What would be the reason for that? So I watch a few times and then I 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.
Speaker 2:you see but uh he's got a dog with a vision issue and he can bring it out at night, of course there's going to be a reason behind it. But if there's got a dog with a vision issue and he can bring it out at night, of course there's going to be a reason behind it. But if there's not a reason behind it and it defies logic and it's not normal human behavior, clinically normal human behavior, then it's worth investigating. So what separates that sustained observation? What takes away sustained observation? A call from somebody going hey, I don't know this guy, he's in my neighborhood and he's acting suspiciously.
Speaker 2:So the idea is you have a threshold of action or for action, if you want to use it that way, and that threshold means that if you meet reasonable suspicion, then you got to look a little harder to get the probable cause and you don't want to throw things in that are going to just muck it up.
Speaker 2:So if I already have reasonable suspicion, I'm building probable cause and you're wearing a mask and I believe that a crime is afoot, now I've got it, now you've met that threshold. People driving wearing a mask Okay, that's interesting. You know, hanging a bandana from your column might mean that you cracked the column and it's a stolen car. Hanging a bandana from your license plate might mean it's a false plate, you know, and you're trying to conceal something. So to me, intent is a much better standard to develop first, because then you go, wow, of all the things I can think of this person's doing right now, the one that has the highest quotient for intent and the one that's seemingly the most obvious is that person is going to punch you or run from you or shoot somebody or do something and, brian, that's an easy standard to meet if you have a system.
Speaker 2:If you have a process, right process right.
Speaker 1:And so this is, you know, kind of what we. What we started discussing earlier 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 enforcement by police department. And of course they added, with a history of aggression and discrimination. Ok, then you have, uh, disability rights of new york same thing. They said it was unconstitutional, discriminating against people with disabilities. And then there's some federal class action lawsuit. It's a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to immediately stop enforcement of the ban, and so this was approved by their legislator. And then they're saying, in response to anti-semitic incidents, often perpetrated by those in mass right, and so the law makes them yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:The. The start, that right, the intent behind it and and what it is is is you know, it's not, I don't, it's not going after some weird political issue or something. It's just saying, hey, this is what's happening, this is what we're seeing these. But it says the law makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a thousand dollar fine, for anyone in Nassau County to wear a face covering to hide their identity in public. And then it exempts people who wear masks for health, safety, religious or cultural purposes or for the peaceful celebration of a holiday or similar religious or cultural event for which mass or facial coverings are customarily worn. So that there's my, there's my halloween argument, um, but uh, so it has these, you know reasons in there or exemptions in there. And again, it's about you know you 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, you can be filmed, you can be recorded, people can watch you when you're out in public and I mean there's nothing, nothing against that. So you know, any attempt to conceal your identity for some reason is what it is, and that's. That's very different than wearing 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 have to show which? Okay, like, I get what you're saying, but, you know you, it goes right back to what you talk about. Well, there's historical precedent for something where people typically only conceal or feel the need to conceal their identity when they're doing some sort of criminal act or something they're not supposed to be doing. So that's the sort of balance there, with the argument, right, that that's the crux of the issue is, well, I should be able to do what I want and dress what 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, so long as you're not impeding on the rights of others.
Speaker 1:This is the general concept behind our legal system and our laws. But because people do and because they use it in this manner, and it's happened so much over the course of history, it adds weight to that. Well, the reasoning behind it. Right, it's not just like an arbitrary thing that they came up with. It's for a specific purpose, and then there's even exemptions to that purpose, like most laws will do. It's not just a black and white thing. There's always some gray area, but that goes back to what they're.
Speaker 1:They're talking about is that it can be in. What I brought up was that then it becomes selective enforcement. Then we only go after certain people 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 do something because, because it could be used, you know, with this one arbitrary item or thing, then you don't need to, you don't have to do that. Start with what's going on and that's what makes this person's behavior suspicious. It's not the mask itself.
Speaker 2: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 for why I believe that this traffic enforcement you know saying, oh, just don't enforce these lower level Look, if you're going to enforce a traffic law and let's say it's not a major thing it's fail 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 out the person is indigent and they don't have enough money to fix whatever and they have some other problem. Well, that's what the courts are for and that's what discretion is for.
Speaker 2:So the idea is you said it early on in the broadcast that it's a case-by-case situation. But tying up law enforcement and saying we'll no longer do them why We'll no longer do them? Because we're targeting a specific population Well, that's wrong by the Constitution anyway. So that means the law has to change. So if you're talking about something, let's make sure that we go at it the right way. There's people that say what's wrong with these demonstrations where we knock over shit and burn down stuff and everything else? Well, you obviously haven't read your constitution, because it's peaceable.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And you have the right to peacefully assemble anywhere, but you don't have the right to do other things. So we cannot pick and choose, and that's specifically what selective enforcement is, but we can'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 for you, brian, as a private citizen, pick and choose what you'll do and what you won't do.
Speaker 2:I tell you what I don't feel like this is important. Well, now you're a constitutionalist maybe in the bad sense the one percenter, you know that that say hey, I'm going to draw my own license plate and put cardboard to the back of my car, I'm a free traveling person, or whatever that nonsense is.
Speaker 1:How many times have you seen that turn into a?
Speaker 2:homicide Right. That turns into shooting.
Speaker 1:That turns into violence.
Speaker 2: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's the icing on the cake, if it's the sprinkles, I would take it to this Look, atmospherics. We used to work on military installations. Every month I mean, it wasn't a month that went by that we weren't working there, and sometimes when we went in, it was a holiday or weekend. On a holiday or weekend, there was no line and you could pull right up to security, flash your ID and go right on the base.
Speaker 2:Okay, that's called an atmospheric and a geographic, and those differences that were going on, those were very potent, they were obvious.
Speaker 2:So if I was testifying to that, I would say every other day that I went there, the line went around the block and we had to wait for hours, but on this specific day there was no traffic, and that's what drew my attention to this situation. So, whether it's the weather or whether it's something that stuck out of the car, this was the only car on the road that had a eight-foot pole with a 20-foot banner flying behind the car and weaving in and out of traffic. That's why you articulate those things, because baselines change depending on things like weather, time of day, whether it's a holiday or not, which city limit you just crossed into, and so you have to constantly update that information. And we're not talking boy, do the loop, we're talking that. And again, a shout out to BASE that BS-ing and thinking that you have to constantly update the 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.
Speaker 2:So here's a simple case that if it's the first thing that draws your attention I say it's wrong. And in this one it's kind of defeating the argument because they got a call on suspicion. But that alone is probable cause. That alone is opening your door because it's a high court misdemeanor.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:That's still sketchy.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and you know it's again why we're discussing this. You know, specific case on, you know, the human behavior podcast is that we it's like I mean I already said it but it's like unnecessary to look at these different items. I can, I can back to what you said is just really understand a baseline and understand normalcy 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, human behavior is way simpler than you think, but also way more complex than you realize. And and or way I say it's like way simpler than than than most people are willing to accept and also a lot more complex than people understand. And those two things can be true at the same time. Like, you can be your own unique little individual and have your own thoughts, feelings and emotions and experiences, but at scale across the population, they're rarely ever unique and they're rarely ever different. Meaning the details are different the time, the location, the date but but the the overall, uh, you know, um, I would say prototypically sort of the same right, the different experiences that that people have. And because, you know, because I'm a huge like, one of the greatest things about our country is that we have these civil liberties, we have free speech, we have the ability to literally it's we're predicated on. You should be able of.
Speaker 1:That stuff gets tied in together and so, which is why the law is what it is. So the law is written down, so that it's black and white. However, the interpretation of it is contextually based. Therefore, it can't be oversimplified or it can't be put into such a narrow box, but it also can't be too broad, like you talked about. Like this is like, maybe this is too broad, maybe this is too far, and that stuff gets dealt out every day, but but it's, it's so like. It's so analogous to behavior in general, greg. Right, because you know, yeah, you can do whatever you want, you can go along, but it doesn't matter. You're going to set these specific patterns, even when you're trying not to sometimes. Right, it's like the.
Speaker 1:You brought up the military. So the military example was you know, you have to don't walk along the ridgeline, because you can be seen for frickin miles up there. So you go what they call the military crest below that. But the problem is too, if you're walking along something hill, guess what you're going to start doing? You're going to start going downhill because naturally, gravity and human, the brain, wants the easiest way to go. So you actually have to plan for things. You actually have to take a look at your route and go did I take this same route before? Because you will, even when you're trying not to, you default to easy mode and you default to what you know. And so that's kind of the point of of of all of this.
Speaker 1:And in this case, because this is a great discussion, um to to get into all of these different details, like you could break this case down and do 10 minutes every 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 discussion points, and keep the same thread going of the same case that's how much is in here, because you know a lot of times we have got it before. It's like why do you guys pick these, these random things? It's like, well, they're, they're not random.
Speaker 1:I understand why you think they're random and like how come you guys don't comment on like some new thing that's going on? It's like, well, they're, they're not random. I understand why you think they'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 the details aren't out yet and we don't know what actually occurred, um, you know, and it's like when, when you can you have 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 big ones that we hear about on the news are always are typically not the best for learning points. They're like, okay, well, it's obvious something went wrong and someone made a mistake and that's why this occurred. So, so it's almost like, not great for analysis.
Speaker 2:Or they're just, you know, eye candy. Hey, look at, look at this first sentence. Do you want to read more on a caper that's very interesting or new? But, brian, just because it's nuanced doesn't mean that it's going to have longevity, doesn't mean it's going to impact my life or livelihood.
Speaker 1: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, because you're kind of saying the government gets to decide what you can wear, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2:I mean it's getting into that area that let's talk about some companion capers that are close enough that you'll start seeing our reasoning. So recently Colorado handed down as a matter of fact I'm holding it here in my hand, I don't want to show it for non-attribution but the laws versus concealed carry, open carry and carry in general of guns at polling places. So the law always has been that whether you're open carry or concealed, as long as you're licensed, you have no problem, go vote. But then some people came up with the idea that, listen, if you're open carrying at the polls, I might feel intimidated that you're trying to push me to vote one way or the other, and they don't allow people to proselytize for their candidate there. So why would they allow you to have an open weapon? Well then, that it didn't impact a concealed carry, licensed carry people. And then somebody came up and said well, wait a minute, if you got a gun you're more likely to commit a crime. That's not true, and the problem is that there's a bunch of people that believe that and the next thing you know now it's nobody can carry a gun unless you're a uniformed officer. And, by the way, if you are, don't show up at the poll because you'll be forcing that police state on me and changing the vote.
Speaker 2:What happens is all this ancillary horseshit is going after the law. So every time you Frankensteinian bolt on something else to it, it becomes unconstitutionally broad or ridiculous when seen on its face on what they tried to accomplish. If you're trying to lower the level of violence at the polls, I understand. Is this the way to get there? If you're trying to lower the likelihood of somebody feeling intimidated, is this the way to get here? And let me show you just one more quick one. Brian and I folks, we were at a place where we were talking to some subject matter experts on certain things and they were working certain demonstrations. And the demonstrations that they were working always became violent and artifacts and evidence that they gave us in support was when they walked by a group. The group was talking about things like you'll handle the emergency evacuation and emergency medical. You'll handle the comms with the cops. You'll handle the external comms with the vehicles.
Speaker 1:You'll handle medical yeah.
Speaker 2:And so you remember that caper. And at the same type of gathering, I remember picking up a flyer and the flyer said these things work as gas mask if they use tear gas. These things work against handcuffs. This is how you disassemble a barricade. Well, brian, all of those things, taken one at a time, might not mean something, but if I start stacking them up and looking at my intent, scale, my likelihood scale.
Speaker 2:Now, what am I looking at? So in this caper, I like that approach, I like having a process and it fits the process. But anytime I have a process and it's the first thing I'm looking at, that becomes the lens that shapes my vision on everything else. So I don't want it to do that. I don't want just the person wearing a mask alone to start going. That's suspicious, because once we use the word suspicious, we're hooked. If we go, well, that's interesting, because the person standing out in front of a 7-Eleven wearing the mask and it's a high crime rate, completely different standard and I think that's what we endorse and I think that's the direction that we like to demonstrate to people.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and the interesting versus suspicious. This is a great one because typically someone from the you know the public calling in there they're going to say, hey, this is suspicious, or I think this and you're kind of already, you're already starting to you could 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's suspicious, maybe it's not, you know. I mean like, because you have the street experience of people calling in and saying everything is suspicious and this is weird and it's usually most of the time it's, it's not anything. But the problem is when it is something, it's usually something very serious, like this guy, an armed robbery or an armed home invasion like he.
Speaker 1:It goes right back to the, the groups you talked about with with the example. Um, you know, when you're taking these steps, you were creating a plan to do these things and cause. You're expecting them to happen. That demonstrates your intent. If you're showing someone, you know this is how you bypass a locked door, this is how you bypass these security measures. Why would you do that unless you were attempting, unless you planned on actually carrying that act out like I? I mean it's, it's the, the, the protest example because that was a good where I said, well, what should you expect to see, while someone showing up with like signs? You know, maybe some bottles of water they're going to be out there for a while and some snacks and and you know certain elements you know, maybe they are going to bring, yeah, maybe, and maybe they they do think that, well, the police might come in and shoot tear gas at us. So we're, we'll, we'll have these things on us to to still be able to breathe, or something like those things kind of make sense. But when you show up and you're wearing like a certain type of clothing or you have you know kit and weapons on, and you you've got you know a gas mask on and your brain it's like you know it's, it's because that's my argument too with like the open carry stuff, and we've talked about it before, about the guy who showed up at the atlanta airport with, like you know, a rifle, and it's like, oh, it's like you're making us all fucking dumber, like what you know. Well, some of the shit I see people carrying. I'm like, what do you expect? What do you think is going to happen today? Because your, your loadout is more than I've carried in combat and and so it's like what? What do you, you're, you're planning for something, uh, for something else here, so it that that's a. These are all those demonstrations of intent that we're talking about, and it and it just, but it's compared to what I should expect to see.
Speaker 1:It's not just drawn on what you're wearing or what you're. You know the, the, the, the hat that you have on and the message on it, necessarily, or what 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 behavior you're exhibiting within a defined context. And so, um, I, I don't know like, 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.
Speaker 1:The less known ones are usually the 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 the behavior, this is what rights you have. This is a concerned citizen trying to make their neighborhood safer you know what I mean and doing the right thing, and it's police intervening before a situation occurs, and that's hard to do legally right, if I don't know how to articulate that, if I don't look for those things or find things curious or interesting in my environment, and so that's what it always starts with. And so I, you know, I mean I I appreciate these types of discussions because I think they're so much more valuable than just picking apart some video of something where something happened, or talking about that high profile case and you know what I think might have occurred. It's like all right man, like there's no value in those to me. You know what?
Speaker 2:I'm saying. But if anybody that routinely listens to Brian and I, the one thing that I hope we encourage you is what I like to call the Sean Clemens quotient. Sean thankfully workaholic, but he has time in the evenings to scour all types of news from all types of places. And then Brian and I are constantly going on the legal sites and the medical sites and what happens is the confluence of Shelly, brian, sean, a couple other great folks that send us stuff. What happens is we've got this fodder and then we go through them and we go, okay, which ones are hard? Which ones would be hard for a defense attorney or hard?
Speaker 1:for a prosecutor?
Speaker 2:Which ones are ACLU going to jump on? Which ones are the Southern Poverty Law Center going to do? And, brian, you're right, those are the least popular ones. But you know what, for every citizen, those are the ones that butt right against our rights and are the most important.
Speaker 2:And when it's an opinion-based thing, like you see, some states enact something, when it's something and don't get me wrong on this one where we're adding somebody's name to a law, sometimes what's happening is we're getting deep into the emotion and not deep into the science, not deep into the research, and that's why we have to scale some of these back. They come out with good intention. There's no hiding the fact that somebody wearing a shemagh and advocating Hamas was wearing a face mask on a campus and the cop goes man, wouldn't it be great if I could go over and ask that person for their identification? Right, you see, that's how these things start and that's not a bad intent. They didn't have the intent to, hey, let's beat down this class or group of people. But what happens, brian, is once you open, once that short end of the wedge is in something like this that's too broad and not constitutionally protected, then you're going to get those creeps.
Speaker 2:You're going to get those people, and they're going to follow that spiral Right. So so our voice, hopefully, is making people think twice about it going. Well, I never considered that, and we're not playing devil's advocate because we're not against the cops and we're not against the rule of law in public order. What we're saying is have you considered this? And this is just as important as that, and that's why I like them too. I like these capers.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah. Well, we got into a lot, so I'd love to get any feedback from folks. You, of course, can. All of our Patreon members can reach out directly on there and if anyone wants to check that out, we've got all kinds of other information on there as well. But reach out to us.
Speaker 1:We have, obviously, the humanbehaviorpodcast at gmailcom is how you can email us or reach out, but we'd love to get feedback and actually, uh, depending on what podcast player, there should be a little link in there, you know, and it says send us a text message. It's a, it's a one way kind of communication. We'll get it. We can't respond on there, but we can. We can respond on on air and record something. But, um, we'd love to get feedback from folks, um, on on any of the stuff that we discussed, because it helps, uh, it helps us make the message more clear and more cogent, um, in a sense, when we hear your perspective on it. So so I always ask people to give us, give us feedback. So, um, I don't know anything anything else to add on this one.
Speaker 2:Greg, just briefly, man, uh, you know, uh, linkedin Folks. If you're on LinkedIn and you give us a thumbs up or you give us a listen or you give us a repost, those things are really hugely powerful on social media. Brian knows all the other. I'm only on LinkedIn. But even if you hear of upcoming training or we're posting somebody else's position for visibility because they're looking for a job, help a brother out. You know, if you've got a chance, you know your brothers and sisters are on LinkedIn. Give us a look. So I really appreciate the opportunity and I'm looking forward to our Patreon.
Speaker 1:Yeah, all right. Thanks everyone. So much for tuning in, and don't forget that training changes behavior.
