L.O.G. 159 Is it a WEAPON or a TOOL
with Brian Marren, Greg Williams
Listen & Watch
Summary
In this thought-provoking episode of "The Human Behavior Podcast," titled "L.O.G. 159 Is it a WEAPON or a TOOL," hosts Brian Marren and Greg Williams dive deep into the nuanced distinction between tools and weapons, asserting that the primary differentiator lies not in the object itself, but in the intent of the wielder and the surrounding context.
Greg Williams posits that while all weapons can technically be considered tools, not all tools are weapons. A weapon, by definition, is intended to inflict injury or death, whereas most tools might accidentally cause harm but lack that specific intent. They challenge common misconceptions, such as carrying an everyday item like a hammer in a boot for self-defense, arguing that such actions demonstrate a clear intent to use it as a weapon, regardless of its primary function as a tool. The hosts illustrate this through various examples, from a utility knife carried openly for perceived safety in a dangerous area to a pickpocket's disarming persona, which serves as a "tool" for theft. They discuss the controversial case of a woman who brought a gun to a school board meeting, arguing that her intent was to gain "access" to be heard, rather than to commit violence, highlighting society's often disproportionate responses when critical thinking and understanding of intent are absent. The conversation culminates in a powerful emphasis on predictive analysis and proactively assessing potential risks, rather than reacting only after an object has been weaponized.
Key Takeaways:
- Intent is Paramount: The fundamental difference between a tool and a weapon is the user's intent. If an object is used with the purpose of inflicting harm, it becomes a weapon, regardless of its original design.
- Context Matters: The environment and circumstances in which an object is carried or used significantly influence whether it is perceived and legally treated as a tool or a weapon.
- Intent vs. Motive: In legal contexts, intent determines criminal liability, while motive (the "why" behind an action) is largely irrelevant to proving that a crime occurred.
- Proactive Thinking: Employing critical thinking and predictive analysis to anticipate potential threats and weaponization of tools can prevent dangerous situations from escalating.
- Everyday Objects Can Be Weapons: From a ball-peen hammer to a kitchen knife or even a hockey stick, nearly any object can be turned into a weapon if the user's intent shifts from its conventional use to causing injury.
Transcript
Alright, well, good morning, Greg. It's morning.
It is indeed.
It's so good for you in the middle of it right now. Folks, we're recording this on March 18th, but it's very, very busy for us. Everything came together at once. So, it's three straight weeks of travel, basically back and forth to different places, which is always fun and interesting. But when it all piles up at once, it makes for really long days for getting work done, between the margins, as they say, I guess.
But we still want to keep putting stuff out. And so, this conversation is something we again, one of our conversations in the car, I guess, where we talk about, was it a weapon or a tool? What's the difference between a weapon and a tool? Why do we see things one way and not the other way sometimes? And so, that's kind of the general topic, and there are a few cases that we want to get into.
But one of the things this kind of goes back to, it's a lot about context, right? Context matters, and intent matters. So, sometimes we don't see things for what they can be used for; we only see them for things that we know how to use them for. If I've only used a screwdriver to screw something in, I don't see it as something someone wants to jam into my neck. If I've only used a utility knife to cut open cardboard boxes, I don't think of it as something threatening. It's a tool, not a weapon to me.
But technically, all weapons are tools. I would describe them as a tool. And most tools can be used as weapons, and I think we'll get into that. But I just want to start there to see if that makes sense to you for the start of the conversation.
No, no. So, let's go back to what started this. The inception is always a good thing, looking back. So, we, you and I, and I, with other folks, and alone, have been teaching about street tools for over 40 years, right?
I'm sure that's a lie, for that many years.
No, but what I'm trying to say is that's why I tried to say you and I when we work together, and me and other people, and then me alone all the way back to the dojo in the 70s. So, and I'm sure I learned it from somebody, and those people have done it in the 30s, and 1800, somebody was showing somebody a belt buckle and swinging it around and hitting an ostrich or something.
But the idea is that all weapons are tools, and not all tools are weapons, simply. The second part of that argument is, a weapon is defined as a tool which is intended to kill or inflict injury, whereas most tools can kill or inflict injury, but it's unintentional. That wasn't the intent. So, now we're talking about the intent, not motive.
But let's get back to street tools. The argument started with you and I in the car. It wasn't an argument; it was a sharing of information because there's some boob on LinkedIn that was showing, like, "Hey, if you keep a ball-peen hammer in your boot, a cop can't arrest you when they stop the motorcycle because it's a hammer." And you're all, "Hey, I got it!" Well, listen to me, folks, don't listen to absolutely everything some idiot puts on there. Because the idea is, listen, I see people, first of all, the best tool if you want to carry it with you, is a box cutter or some edged weapon that's under three inches. Because when you get to three inches or over, specifically if it's fixed or the blade comes out mechanically, you're going to be guilty of a felony somewhere in the United States, just telling you.
But the cool thing is, you never have to reload a knife. You understand what I'm saying? Knives are silent, knives are lethal, and knives are utile. So, I can use it camping, or to, you know, carve up an animal to eat, or to kill my neighbor if he gets out of control. Sorry, Lon. But the idea is that this idiot was trying to say that, listen, you're not going to be circumspect if you have, for example, a ruler and polish one side so you can behead somebody. The whole idea has nothing to do with that. It has to do with what's your intent?
So, intent determines that you accidentally or purposely committed the crime. Motive says why you did it. So, the idea that just because you did it, whether you did it accidentally or intentionally, you carried that item. So, you intended to use it as a weapon, therefore it's assault with a deadly weapon.
That's a great point, when someone says, "Oh, you can carry this for this reason." It's like, well, no, but you can show, you demonstrate intent when you put a ball-peen hammer in your boot or something.
Exactly. Then where do you go? Exactly. So, I would, if I was the attorney, Brian, you're spotted. So, if I was the attorney on that, I would say, "Okay, do me a favor. You ever met a carpenter?"
Yep.
"Yeah. You ever met a carpenter on a job site?"
Yeah.
"What are some of the things that that person carries? Now, you knew that carpenter even off-duty, right?"
Yeah.
"Did you ever go to 7-Eleven with him?"
Yeah.
"Did you ever go to dinner with him?"
Yeah.
"Did they carry their tool belt with them?"
No.
"Where was it?"
In the car.
You understand what I'm trying to say? Thank you, Your Honor. Jury is, you know.
Well, that's even the utility knife example you give. Like, that's something that we do in places. If you know you need a weapon, you can get a utility knife anywhere, and it doesn't really raise suspicion. But if you're walking around with a utility knife in your pocket, and you're not cutting up cardboard boxes, and you're not a carpenter, you're not at work, that's like, what intent do you have behind that?
So, in our case, I would say like, "Hey, this is a backup if something goes wrong. I have a weapon available because I'm in a chaotic place, or I'm in a dangerous place, and I don't have the ability." So, but that's clearly my intent when it's, and you can explain that.
In computer science precisely. You can explain that in the motive, in the moment, rather. I'm thinking of motive already. But if you think about it, we've been in places, you and I, in the continental United States where we were teaching at a base that was close to an area that wasn't a lot of fun. And so, I'd always go in, I would buy a box cutter, I would open the box cutter in the cart along with the spare undies I was getting or whatever, because you know, we were driving and flying and driving and flying, and we never got a chance to do some things.
And I would have them right there. So, here's our water bottles, here's our, you know, the little hydration sticks, here's the box cutter open right there with the package. Nothing concealed on my clothing. Pushing it around in the store while we're shopping. And if somebody would have stopped and said, "What's with that?" Listen, I don't know you, I don't know this environment, it's late at night. You understand what I'm trying to say? And I'm just trying to get through the game.
So, we pay for the box cutter, and then I carry it in my hand on the way to my car. Listen, it's not paranoia, Brian, it's the fact that we don't have the opportunity sometimes to choose where we go and train. You think it's going to be different a couple of days in Colombia? I mean, we're going to be coming up with street tools for the express purpose to ensure our safety and the safety of the people around us. And that doesn't mean that we're going to increase the level or potential for violence, does it? See, that's the difference. The guy with the hammer in his boot is looking for trouble, and the idea is, if you look for trouble, I think scientifically we can prove they're going to find it.
Exactly. No, and that's a good point because you do see that junk on social media all the time and people are like, "Okay," when you clearly have no understanding of the law. Two, you've never met a decent attorney because they're like, "Oh, yeah, no, I can go after you for that." I mean, it's, I don't know, but whatever, that's, that's, that's.
Let me go one more on that one. The other guy, because it was all what you could keep in your boot, because you could reach down into your boot quickly. And boots are hard when somebody pats you down, and it's unlikely that they'll discover the item hidden in your boot. Except that boots have been a hiding place since the Roman legions. You understand what I'm trying to say? Remember that day Jesus wore a boot, and he had a rock in his boot just in case?
The idea is that that same guy with the same article had a different person he interviewed, bless you. And in the interview, the guy said, "Yeah, I always keep the brass knuckles, and if I'm going to fight somebody, I choose to fight in a bathroom because of these factors." First of all, if you carry a pair of brass knuckles, horrible advice. If you carry a pair of brass knuckles, understand that brass knuckles, the possession of which, are like a mechanical knife, it's a felony. So, just being in possession, no other factors need to apply.
Then the second thing is that you used it during an assault, and that you chose the location of the assault to be the bathroom. Brian, what are we talking about? We're talking about intent 101, you're going to prison.
Yeah, that's still 100% intent. Yeah, yeah, you're demonstrating it right there.
Buffoonery. It's chuckleheadery. But people buy those books, they tune into those YouTube, and I swear to God, the link, and if I see one more clap when somebody talks about that, it's like, what are you, an idiot? I think what it comes from, Brian, I think it comes from when I was young, my youthful fascination with like Batman and Spider-Man.
Yeah, you had executive utility.
I think nowadays it's even worse. Okay, I have all these things on me, like a lock pick. I can't tell you how many times in my 60 years that that lock pick has been handy. So, I did actually go through lock-picking courses. But the idea was that I actually was able to do that on deployment before and use it, but it was like rare and unnecessary, really. But it was because it was a padlock on a chain, and then to get to the internal doors, or the old school doors with the skeleton keys. And so, I carried a little spindle of skeleton keys that I could stick in and pop the lock. One would work, right?
Right. But that's the same, that's another one I constantly make fun of for that reason. It's like, where are you going to pick? What are you getting into here? Like, if this is, and especially when people are like, "Well, you know, things go bad, and you got to get access to something." Like, yeah, throw a rock through the window, buddy, like, at that point.
You're exactly right, my dear. My dear friend, Jaeger, came to me one day on the ranch. And Jaeger had this, I won't give any more details, but the vehicle that he pulled down, it was impossible to get into the trunk in any other manner other than having a key or a cutting torch. And so, I said, "What do you want to do?" And he said, "I need to get in." And I said, "Okay, well, are you going to change the lock cylinder?" And he goes, "Yeah." And I go, "Okay, easy day." So, I showed him, you know, open a lock, jam a thing in, turn it this way, and pop it out, and it opens. And he goes, "That was amazing!" I go, "No, it was a tool." This is a perfect discussion. That was a tool, right? And any tool can be modified or adapted because what's the intent behind a tool? The tool makes our life or a job easier. It has a specific purpose, an abacus, a calculator, tools of sorts.
There was the article, Shantel, our advisor, our social commentator, sent that article about the woman, I think it was in Florida, that was an old granny, and she looked so disarming, and she would stand at the airport and give people a hug like she thought she knew them. And people go, "Oh, that was so sweet," and walk away and go, "Holy, where's my pearls? Where's my credit card? Where's my money?" She was pickpocketing people. So, what was her tool? Her tool was her routine. "I'm an old woman that looks a little befuddled, I come up to you, I pat you down, and I take it away." Why did the tool work? Because she had refined that tool in that situation and used all the atmospherics and the tool's biometrics and everything about, what do tools do? Tools can give you access, right? So, she was, that's how she got access.
You gained access into that place by popping the lock, right? A lock pick is supposed to give you access. That's what we're talking about. Tools can do, tools can give you access. But, you know, it's always about what is the intent. And I know we talked about a case where, maybe if you want to go over, the woman at the school board meeting.
Yeah, yeah.
So, there's a perfect example. So, first of all, I apologize because at the end of the street tools argument a few minutes ago, Brian said, "So, what's the difference between," no, what you, you asked it so simply because you were rhetorically asking, "So, what makes a tool a weapon?" And I said, "Intent." You go, "There's a podcast!" You remember that? That's how, you know, it was months ago that this has been dancing around in our heads.
So, a female showed up at a school board meeting, and because she didn't completely understand how you have to, you know, call ahead and schedule a meeting and do this, you can't just stand in line, in this specific context, what happened is she said, "Listen, I want to talk about my son or daughter." Don't remember, a lot of time's gone by now, it's at least a month. And they were like, "Hey, listen, there's procedure, this is the way things are going to be." So, she pulled out a gun and set it on the counter in front of her and said, "Can you hear me now? Are we talking now?"
Now, Brian, the idea that that was not an assault, it wasn't her intent to carry out a terroristic threat in her environment. Her baseline created the environment where, like, I'm the youngest brother and every one of my brothers is gigantic, right? So, I had to use humor so I wasn't constantly getting down, you understand what I'm trying to say? So, in this female's environment, the only way to get in and go, "Hey, I'll have that last turkey leg from Thanksgiving," or to say, "Hey, I need to use the bathroom next," or "I'd like to watch ESPN," whatever that was, there was always a tool here, a weapon that was involved in getting her access to what she needed. So, she wanted to be heard, that's all she wanted. She didn't want to hold hostages, Brian. It wasn't an armed robbery. She just said, "Do you hear me now? Can we talk now?" And, "Oh my God, they arrested her and they were throwing a book at her and everything else."
Well, I mean, still, yeah, she probably did. That's not the way to do it. But we don't educate folks, where's our civics class that tells us how there's alternatives, right? Critical thinking skills. For example, did you read the article this morning? I sent you about the, it was very close to the article about the vaping.
Okay. But yeah, it's all, okay, so female in London was taken off to the side, 15-year-old, I believe, and she was strip-searched. Now, this female was asked to bend over, spread her buttocks, go through all these other things because somebody thought they smelled marijuana, and they thought it was her. One, marijuana, seriously? Two, spread your butt cheeks. Listen, even if you were alleged to have a Molotov cocktail, we're back to the elephant in the matchbox here, Brian. What good, and it's all down to juice squeeze, you know? You're in an environment where you got to carry a goddamn ball-peen hammer in your boot. Go out and take the 200 concealed weapons course and buy you, you understand? I mean, I don't get what's going on.
You have more, I think, legal standing in that sense if you went out and took that course and had an actual gun on you instead of a ball-peen hammer. I get it. I think so.
And so, listen, but we're not talking about self-defense in the girl that smelled like marijuana and they strip-searched her. What we're always talking about, you and I, it seems we're always talking about the egregious content. We're never talking about normalized stuff that, "Hey, this happened, and then the person did this. You spouted off, and I punched you in the nose." We never have discussions on that. It's always, "You spouted off, I walked out of the dentist office and came back in and killed it." Am I lying?
Yeah, I mean. So, so that crescendo of violence that, it's just amazing to me that people would strip-search anybody nowadays for weed or for a vape pen. And, well, to go back to the school board thing, I mean, because I want to make sure it's, that the idea of kind of what you're saying is that she never had the intent to use it ever as a weapon. She had the intent to use it as a tool to get her access, right? To get attention.
And the Russians, when the Russian premier was trying to get the attention of the United Nations, he took off his shoe and he beat his shoe on the podium. Okay, that's what she did. Instead of using her shoes, she used a gun. Was it a poor choice? Yes. Was that part of her socialization and likely part of her education level? Yes. So, therefore, what I'm trying to say is, it was a poor choice, young lady, but she shouldn't go to federal prison for it. You understand what I'm trying to say? Because it never met the standard of the intent.
Now, I don't want to give anybody else an idea.
No, no. But meaning, right? It's that's, it's different than the person who walks into the city town meeting, pulls the gun out, and takes everyone hostage and says, "Remember, are they using it as a weapon? Are they using it as a tool?" You know, was it a weapon or was it a tool? Because those are two different things.
Now, there was a guy, and I can't remember his name, do you know who Godfrey Cambridge is? I don't know if you remember the actor, it's a long time ago. An actor very popular in the 70s, but he was a black comedian and actor that was much the same as [Richard] Pryor in opening up doors that comedians at that time that were black never had, specifically on TV and film. And he did a film where he portrayed a white fella, and it was hilarious in a lot of ways, but it was also kind of dramatic where you're going, "Huh, I get it."
So, later, much later, probably 25 years ago, there was a black male that showed up at a university and did whiteface and was talking about things in a sociology class. Then would gradually take off the disguise and say, "I'm actually a black male." Okay, why am I talking about that? Because those were tools to grasp the attention of an audience in a very specific way to discuss something else. Okay? So, you look at it and you go, "Wow, that's, that's going all the way around the house to get," yeah, but in that context, at that time, for that message, that tool was effective, just like a Phillips head and a standard screwdriver are different tools for a job.
Now, we might not agree with that.
Yeah, yeah, you don't have to agree with it, but it's called what it is.
But understand that that was a tool. So, it wasn't a weapon. Do you get what I'm trying to say? And then people say, "Well, weapon's kind of a tool." No, no, a weapon is to inflict the injury or death. And the idea is that sometimes it's used just to threaten, of course, but the idea is that once you've threatened, now it's no longer a tool, it becomes a weapon. Your intent is demonstrated. Intent is your objective, motive is what drove you to do it. Intent is necessary to determine criminal liability. Motive is inconsequential, it's irrelevant. So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation.
And tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right?
Right. You know, it's, it's, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look.
Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation.
And tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right?
Right. You know, it's, it's, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look.
Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation.
And tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right?
Right. You know, it's, it's, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look.
Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation.
And tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right?
Right. You know, it's, it's, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look.
Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation.
And tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right?
Right. You know, it's, it's, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look.
Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right? I mean, that's really, you can't, you can't just do the, a guy with a ball-peen hammer on his tool belt while he's working on a home is very, very different than the guy with the ball-peen hammer in his boot. I mean, it's just, it's not hard to define, but we don't think of it that way sometimes. It's, we're not trying to be oversimplify this stuff, it sometimes really is that simple. And this is why also, just a reiteration of why we constantly focus on intent and so little on motive, right? Because I'm never going to, walking down the street, I'm never going to know someone's motive for anything, just looking at them.
You never will. But I can determine their likely intent and how this is supposed to, and how they're going to behave and act in a given situation. And, you know, tools are interesting because I know we got another one sent from, I think Sean sent it, but also I've seen it on social media, too. The guy who had the iPhone, it looked like an iPhone, and it spreads it out into a gun. It opens it up, and it's actually like a little zip gun, a modern-day zip gun, right? You know, it's the same thing. It's a heuristic when we see that. "Oh, it's a cell phone." And then we don't ever give something that, that second chance or that second look. Access, baby, access. That's how it can grant you access, right?
So, listen, what Brian is telling you folks, motive is irrelevant. Get motive out of your mind the same as attitude, viewpoint, feeling. Put those in a separate compartment because what we're doing artifacts and evidence in support, so that means no matter whether the act is committed with a good intent or a bad intent, if the person does it purposefully, consciously, intentionally, and it's prohibited by law, then you've got criminal liability. That's all you have to have. Motive is the standard that's not necessary to prove you criminally culpable in any crime. So, the idea is that motive is a good thing to have if you're an attorney making your summary argument, maybe to a jury, but it's absolutely unnecessary and irrelevant.
So, when you take a look at something, the idea that almost any tool when it's in your hand, again, here we are in anger and rage. I am in a barroom or a restaurant setting. Somebody bumps into my chair. I turn around and say, "Excuse me." And that person's having none of it. And now the tray that they were carrying their food on turns into an impact weapon. You get what I'm trying to say? We have to think about that, not when we're at the restaurant, Brian. I think that's what we're telling people all the time.
Take a look at where you're in more danger. You're in more danger in your car if it's a road rage incident. You're in more danger at the restaurant or at the gas station, as Brian loves, because you're out of your car and you're actually walking around with the credit card or money in your hand to pay for something. So, if we take this as one splinter of the pie, one piece of the pie, now having that tool and having it be able to be a weapon just based on the intent, you got to think about your actions, too. If you punch somebody, you're probably going to get arrested. You're at least going to get cited, and that's an assault. If you punch somebody with something in your hand...
Yeah. Okay, it's a whole new game. It's different.
Even if that thing in the hand is a book or an ashtray. You understand what I'm trying to say? Or a stapler, a red stapler. "Oh, you think I'm going to punch this guy if he didn't clear up?"
That's a really good point. And why is it different? Because that's just demonstrating intent versus defending yourself, right? No, you used a weapon that you brought for the purposes of that, that's made for this, or a tool that's made for this.
And the law tries to teach you, Brian. So, your defense is going to be, "Hey, look, I had it in my hand, I got surprised, I used it." And the law says, "Hey, you should engage the gift of time and distance because you should have allowed your brain to cool, that would have cooled the body, you would have sat down the item and called the police and let them work it out," rather than me hit you with the Swingline, the red stapler.
Right, right, which is also, you know, it's better if you use the other person's gun on them. The one, where are we going?
Go on, Brian, would say, "Come on." If you're the one that brought the weapon to the fight, and I ended up with it, used it, I never had any intent that day of doing it. But that's the Rick Moranis defense in the very first Ghostbusters, where the guy comes running out and the apartment's on fire and the whole upper floor has been ripped off, and Rick Moranis is looking around because he's possessed by Gozer the Gatekeeper and they go, "What just happened?" He goes, "Ah, someone brought a cougar to a party, and the damn thing went nuts." What a great line, you know what I'm saying? So, as cops, I cannot tell you how many times I use that exact line when it was just total devastation there.
Think about what you said though, Brian. If you bring alcohol to a party and somebody gets drunk, if you bring a gun to a party and somebody gets shot, you understand what I'm trying to say? I mean, if you were thinking that, "Hey, I'm going to line things up in my house just in case this happens," and then it happens, well, that's kind of intent.
It's kind of intent. Yeah, "I'm going to set this up so if someone were to break in or were to do this..." How many times have we seen that they say, "Okay, I'm tired of getting broken into, so I'm going to rig this explosive device or this trap." And a person gets killed, and now they're up for homicide. And they said, "Okay, well, you knew or should have known that the intent of your actions would deliver this."
A tool, a computer is a tool. Can a computer kill somebody? Arguably, yes. Do you remember the female that talked the guy into, "Hey, you talk about killing yourself. Why don't you go in the garage and start that car?" You see what I'm saying? So, a lot of things unintentionally that are viewed solely as tools could easily become a weapon, and you're defending your life now. So, you better think of those now. You better sit around and look at what those could be now because if not, and the person's got intention and access to you, it could be that you're going to film your own homicide.
I agree. So, I think again, I always refer back to, when understanding some of this stuff, is that obviously context matters because that determines the intent, right