L.O.G. 122 How To Build A Solution

Hello and welcome to the video version of The Human Behavior Podcast. I'm Brian Marren, the host and creator of the show. As always, I will be joined by human behavior expert, Mr. Greg Williams, who the show is affectionately named after. On the show, we discuss different topics through the lenses of what we call human behavior pattern recognition analysis. If you'd like to find out more about what that is, please check the links in the episode details and go to our website to learn more. Please don't forget to follow us on social media—the links are also in the episode details—and hit the like and subscribe button to help support our work. Thanks for tuning in, and we hope you enjoy the show.

Let's see, we're recording now, so we're good. Greg, are you ready to get started?

I think so. Good morning to you.

Good morning to you, Greg.

So we will get started this morning, kind of continuing on with the last couple episodes that we did, talking about these high-profile police use of force cases and then really diving deep into what the contributing factors are, what some potential solutions are. So we're going to get to that today. So, Greg, if you don't mind, I'll just start with some real quick opening remarks to give us some left and right lateral limits, some place to start.

That sounds good. I would welcome them.

Alright. So, providing solutions for really hard, general problems can be difficult because there is no single way to approach these issues. Inevitably, there will be some part of the problem, some contributing factor, that may not be fully addressed. This is especially true when we discuss different policy decisions. There's always a degree of uncertainty involved, and so attempts at solutions should be treated as such. There are methods that help manage that uncertainty, or just as the father of uncertainty said himself, "Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability."

So what does that mean for our discussion today? Today, we're talking about how to build a solution, how to develop a framework that can be used at a tactical, operational, strategic level. This starts with asking the right questions in three main areas that we will discuss today: policy, training, and support. Although each one of these areas can be discussed at length from a variety of different perspectives, we are going to apply them to the same three groups that we discussed on previous episodes, and those groups are: the police, the community, and local leadership.

Greg, I kind of want to start with my fast-food chain analogy. So because, first of all, that's going to make me hungry. Second of all, before you do that...

Shout out to Heisenberg! Way to quote Heisenberg first thing in the morning. There's nothing better than kicking it in.

Yeah, well, I think that's, yeah, that's Heisenberg. He said it all the best in the Heisenberg Principle. We talk about it in a number of different areas, but you're getting down into quantum mechanics, but he overturned basically the world of physics and said, "Well, kind of everything we thought isn't exactly true," because at a really, really, really small level, there's all kinds of other action going on that's hard to measure. But folks can kind of do your research on that, and I'm not talking about the Heisenberg character from the TV show Breaking Bad; I'm talking about Werner Heisenberg.

But in here, you know, we're trying to take a lot of different issues, put them into a comprehensive solution. So yes, it's complicated, and there's a lot of factors involved, but that's fine. These are hard problems. Hard problems can be solved. That's why we're talking about it. If there was no way to solve these issues, we'd be talking about something else, I don't know.

But I brought up Chick-fil-A to use as an example, so I want you to kind of hear me out on this one, Greg. So there's all kinds of different fast-food chains, right? Everything: McDonald's, Burger King, Subway, Starbucks, I would even consider in there. These major, major franchise organizations, and they all have their business model that make them a ton of money, and some do it better than others, but that's also dependent on taste and all these different factors that they have to take into account.

What Chick-fil-A does is very, very different from the other business models. They don't follow that, "Okay, hey, we got to hurry up and go, we got to just pump out as much food as we possibly can to as many locations and give all these people these different options." Their model takes a step back and says, "Okay, we understand how competitive this market is, and we need to be competitive." In order to be a successful business, they've got to make money, and they're competing against those other giants, but they took their model and they factored it around their policies, their training, and their support.

What I mean by this is they're closed on Sundays. Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays because their beliefs said, "You know what? Our religious beliefs say we rest on Sundays, and so we're not going to open up, and we instill those values in our work." Now, whether you agree with that or not, I don't really care. My point is, they're still one of the most competitive, one of the highest-earning fast-food chains in the world, and they're closed one day out of the week. So if there's 52 weeks in the year, they're closed 52 days where their competitors are open. So they're obviously doing something still to compete at that high of a level, create that type of revenue, and not even have the same working hours.

So that's one. And they did it by, one, their policies of how focused they are on their people. For one, even being a franchisee owner for Chick-fil-A, you have to go through this lengthy selection process. You can't just walk up with a bunch of money and say, "Yeah, I want to open one." They go, "No, no, it's only like ten thousand dollars to open one here, but you got to hit all these buckets." Oh, guess what? You're an operator of this; you have to manage that location. So you have to be fully in because they want you part of their community internally, part of Chick-fil-A, and externally that community. So their policies are laid out, they're clear, they're straightforward, and they can be written down, and you will understand them.

They train their people; they train their managers; they train their folks that work there; they pay them better. So their support is there. So their support is internally to support their employees, and externally, they support the community. There are certain expectations. They say that "we are 100% customer service oriented; that community is everything to us. You will be a part of that community. This is no separate 'us versus them'; this is how we're going to run it." So they hit policy, they hit training, and they hit support better than McDonald's, right? And they can compete with McDonald's even though they pay their workers more than McDonald's pays their workers. They're open less than McDonald's is open. They have fewer locations. I've never been to a Chick-fil-A where there wasn't a line wrapped around the parking lot during peak hours.

Thank you. Just a month ago, across from our hotel, you and I never got to Chick-fil-A the entire time. When we were coming and going from our hotel, what did we see? Two lines that were blocking two major thoroughfares in Virginia.

Yeah. So my Chick-fil-A analogy is just that, right? They took a look at policies, training, and support, and they said, "Okay, we have all of these different stakeholders in the community, we have all these people making different decisions, this is how we're going to run our business." And it's extremely successful because they're so focused on their customer base, they're so focused on the people that work for them—that's their lifeblood, and they realize that. So their mission is about supporting them and getting them the most training and food for the community that they can possibly get. Now, I understand it's to make money, so it's a different than what we're talking about in terms of police reform.

Prototypically, it's the exact same thing.

Yeah, it's a different market, it's a different mission, it's a different thing, but the framework, that framework is solid. So I would ask you to defend your position.

I would say that you hit the policy, training, and support. I would say that it's the quintessential argument, and I think that you did a great job of coming up with something that now made me hungry. Haven't had that Chick-fil-A breakfast that you talk about all the time.

Oh, those things are amazing!

So prepare to be deposed. The remaining three buckets that we have for this argument are local leadership, community, and the police (meaning law enforcement professionals and first responders, but for this argument, let's restrict it to police). Can you give me examples that you know of where Chick-fil-A supports local leadership or enlists their aid, that they investigate the community, and where they haven't dropped the ball and just said, "The hell with all police"? You see what I'm trying to say? I know you can, it's sort of rhetorical, but I want to toss it back to you: does Chick-fil-A, does the Chick-fil-A model fit those remaining three buckets?

Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. And they do that for different community support. They do whether that's for, yeah, of course, law enforcement, first responders, but also just people inside that community, different non-profit organizations, they donate food, they do—I mean, they get heavily involved at every single level, not just...

All problems that we're talking about are functional leadership. That's a blanket statement. We can get back to that in a little bit.

Yeah, can I throw that at you? I would. One real quick, because I would agree with that. No, there's all kinds of different issues people bring up about culture and about this, and meaning, like, the culture of an organization is that you can, if you want to boil—we're going to boil all of that down to just that tiny drop because it does come down to leadership. Now, there's a lot in there, there's a lot of condensed in there, but 100%, I would agree with that statement.

Yeah. So, first thing I would tell you is that we're talking about hard problems, and I want our listeners and our viewers, and our regular and our new ones, to understand that these are hard problems. That's why we choose them. Look, Galileo and Copernicus came up with hard problems, and they had solutions, and they were murdered or killed or run out of town on a rail because of them. I guarantee that when Martin Luther went up and started nailing something on a church door, he didn't stick around to see the temperament or the people. He hauled ass out of there because he saw what the results were.

So why—you'll remember that the early cars didn't have seat belts, okay? And as a matter of fact, a lot of the terminology that we get from certain things come from older times. The dashboard on your car was a piece of wood to keep the mud off of you when your horse galloped back on your church clothes, right? Floorboards were in fact wood because they were built as wagons. Fisher Body, which makes the car bodies, was a carriage company. So we got to sometimes look back, Brian, and I would tell you is, when we look back at the advent of seat belts, nobody wanted to wear seat belts, and it's taken years, decades, to get people to understand it's in their best interest. Just like wearing the mask, for why? Because we lose control, Brian. We have to give up our element or of our of our personal choice, and we have to cede some of our control, and as humans psychologically, we don't like that, Brian. So when you're talking about that we have to get together with a community and decide something that's better for my neighbor that might not be able to take care of themselves, the human side of me steps up and says, "Hey, survival of fittest, kiss my ass! I don't want to reach out for him."

But you know what we don't understand, we don't take into consideration that there's spirals, there's tendrils that come out of that. You know, there was a parachute death in California a couple of weeks ago. A female died, and it was the second or third such incident this year so far. So the call is on to stop all parachuting. Okay, well, that's a jerk reaction. Is that not like stop all traffic stops? And my thing to you is, if we stop—my conjecture is that if we stop all traffic stops, we're going to reap the effing whirlwind. We do not understand the consequences, the long-term consequences, of our immediate reactions.

And I'll clarify that in my perspective even further. One, I agree with: we don't, we shouldn't do knee-jerk policy reactions. So we'll get to the, you know, the "no more foot chase or traffic stop" things in a second. But I liken that if you're doing it for, you know, for some set amount of time in order to investigate it—I look at it like when a plane crashes, right, which is actually very rare when a passenger plane crashes, right, because there's so many safety protocols in place. They go, "What model was this plane?" And then sometimes they'll go, "Hey, we're immediately grounding all 737, 784, 10, whatever that might," right?

You're obviously a pilot.

Whatever. They'll ground all of those aircraft, right, until we figure out what specifically is the problem. And then once they address the problem, they say, "Okay, it was this part of the braking mechanism didn't react in time because of this short that's prone to here. We replace all those, they test them," and then they do what? They put it back online. They go, "Okay, those are all good to go." So if you were doing this, those reactions say, "Hey, we're going to stop this for the next three months while we investigate this, this, or this, and we're going to look at the contributing factors and how this plays out," I would at least understand your logic and your way of thinking. But the problem is...

You have to have, Brian, you'd have to have artifacts and evidence in support of a reasonable conclusion. You wouldn't do it for the first one unless there was a glaring abnormality. Do you see what I'm saying? "Hey, what's that hanging down from the plane when it takes off?"

I agree with your point. No, no, there's a first investigation, right, before they ground them. And then the initial investigation, they, you know, then they ground them all saying, "Oh, this is this is a design flaw that needs to be fixed." Once that design—it's like you brought up the car example, getting a recall on your car, right? Someone takes it in, there's a brake issue, they investigate it, and they go see if it's just that vehicle and then go, "Holy crap, this is all of that model Toyota! We need to recall that and replace that part before it happens again to someone else." So I liken it to that.

And so what you're talking about knee-jerk reaction policies, because, you know, like you said, it comes down to leadership, but that leadership is what's defining these policies. So you have our three buckets of the community, the police, and the leadership. That leadership goes, "Okay, the community is asking for something." Yes, so here's the thing, you know, it's no different than any other business. Sometimes, the customer is not always right.

That's true.

Meaning, they don't always know what's best for me. I'm going to have this emotional reaction for good cause. There's absolutely reason for that; I'm not saying that there isn't. But when my initial reaction to it is never really going to be the best one...

Well, I can speak—I can speak to that in my life, right? I can say my initial reaction to some situations is not always the best, and so I've had to learn to excuse myself at some points or take a step back and take a breath because...

Are you challenging your emotional maturity here?

I am. No, no, I'm getting better. I'm kidding.

You are! No, no, stop shaking your head! No one can see you shaking your head; they're listening!

I'm shaking my head no, by the way.

Yeah, that's next time. I keep forgetting I dress up for the broadcast every day, and Marren says there's nobody watching.

So the idea is, yeah, you know, anger's easy, empathy is hard, as I'm constantly reminded on a daily basis. But which is a really, really good point, right? Especially when we have emotional reactions to different events. "Oh my gosh, what the F, this again? I can't believe this!" Getting angry like that is easy. It's hard having empathy and looking at that as another human being. It's, oh, what's my good family friend and good, you know, practical like an uncle to me told me. He was explaining his story. He said, "You know, you got to be able to reach across the fence and pet the monster, that barking dog. You have to be able to go, 'Alright, hey, buddy, okay, I know you're upset right now, right?'" And that's that's one way of looking at it. And again, when it gets these different populations of community, leadership, police, there's that heavy interaction. Sometimes it's positive, some sort of negative. There's different forces acting on it.

So specifically back to what you brought up about, "Uh, we're no longer doing—we're no longer going to chase someone." Okay, well, that's a that's a blanket policy that is not taking into account second-order effects. And which is the not taking into account second, third-order effects is why we're where we're at today. We are in this position because of failed policies in the past. Okay, the "let's lock everyone up," "mass incarceration"—we're just now dealing with that. How does that work for us, right?

Well, and the problem is too, is fixing it takes just as long as it did to create the problem. So if it was 30 years ago that those events were put into place, it's going to be another 30 years before it really starts to change. And that's that's with anything in these that's why it's so powerful. That's why bad relationships and corruption—it doesn't stop when it's found out, or meaning the effect doesn't stop when we when we get to take a look at it finally. It continues for generations sometimes.

And so knee-jerk reaction policies are not the way to go. And these open discussions needed to have, but with the community, for one, saying like, "Look, we understand this, but here's what's going to happen if we if we stop that chase." And that, yes, will it mitigate the next, you know, one of these types of events or shootings? Yeah, probably. But but what's the other side of that coin, Greg? I mean, you get what I'm saying? What else is it going to do?

No, it's oversimplified. Let's say, "Hey, listen, rain causes floods, and we didn't like the result of the last flood, so let's stop all rain." And then a few months later, we're dying because the crops are dead. And somebody's going to, "You're oversimplifying that." Do you understand, person that's saying that to me right now? That Jeffrey Dahmer, that John Wayne Gacy, that the Green River Killer—I could go on, Brian—all of the major players that we discussed were stopped routine. That word which we all hate, but it's out there. Traffic stops by some good copper that established probable cause and made the stop. And you know what? Bad guys run.

And the idea is that good people that have nothing to hide, that have nothing to fear, do not fear anything, and they do not run. And you're going to say, "Oh, well, you know, the police in the inner city and this." Look, we all got skin in the game. Nobody wants to flip and chase you because we don't want the stakes to get higher. We want to mitigate that. We want to de-escalate. What's our policy? ABCD: Always Be Considering De-escalation. So we don't want a police pursuit because we understand that there's ancillary things that happen, Brian. We blow through an intersection, the suspect vehicle hits a bus full of nuns. We don't want that. There's no cop that's going, "Oh, tonight, please God, let me get in the foot chase that ends in here!" Right? Nobody does that.

And I think the point that you brought up was great, and I never considered it, so I wrote it down. The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). The NTSB comes in whenever there's a commercial plane crash. And I—I mean, they probably do it on small Cessna crashes.

Yeah, they do it. Right, that's right. Yeah.

But the idea is that on a commercial one, they do that. And listen, that's not the only thing that happens. Are there civil lawsuits? Yeah, they sue the manufacturer of the plane, the airline. That's good. That's called redress. Redress is an absolute constitutional right for somebody to come in and right a wrong. But what do they have to have for that? Can't be frivolous. They have to have artifacts and evidence. They have to have a suggestion that this caused this; it was a proximate cause of something. So would your NTSB argument, and the idea that there's criminal and civil laws that keep us safe when we're in the air, and it almost never happens, why couldn't we apply that same standard to law enforcement?

I mean, we're talking about how to build an answer, not the answer. And I think that you touched on something, that framework works. Yes, other situations, just like your Chick-fil-A works in other situations.

Well, and that's that's exactly what the Chick-fil-A one is. They're so focused on gaining support from the community, support in terms of yes, as customers, but also acceptance. And they want to be—they want to be an active member, an active role in that, right? And they want to be part of that community. And so the solution, or you're part of the problem. And the idea is, they're getting involved. So one, obviously that's step one, but but they do that by training. They train their people to be so customer service oriented that they're never going to do something. It's it's never going to almost never going to be the employee's fault if something happens. So, but if it is, it'll be glaringly obvious because they chose off the menu, that they chose.

Yes, because they do it so well.

And right. And then that's their focus, like you just said, one, they have one, it's your empower—they empower their employees by doing that. "Alright, we're going to pay you a fair wage, and we're going to train you how we want you to do your job, and we're giving you the best of our ability." And so it's very easy then when you get some irate customer in that example, you know, getting emotional over their food or whatever and causing a scene, as long as that employee said, "Hey, look, I went down the checklist of things you taught me to do. I went through everything, and this person was going to have it." They can go, "Hey, don't worry about that. You're going to deal with people. They're they're out there. There's that small percentage of people that they they don't care. It's about them, so they're going to make it about them." And then, just like you said, if it is the other situation where the employee screws up, they'll be able to say, "Okay, we're in here. Did you follow?" "Well, no, I didn't say that; I went over here." It's like, "Well, you just colored outside the lines, and therefore you reap the whirlwind." And that's the idea; it's set in stone, and they do that with their policies. So I I just think that's why I love that example of how they how they how they do it. And you actually now...

Well, well, go ahead. Sorry, I'll let you know something.

Yeah. No, no, I love it. But I want to dovetail something on here. Just a few days ago, in and around Atlanta, a police officer was reinstated that had been fired for an escalation of force. A person had fallen asleep at a drive-through window that led to a fatal shooting, and within 24 hours, that cop was out of a job. Now, whatever you feel, you have to go back to those buckets: local leadership, community, police, policing or correction, policy, training, and support. Now I've got my six buckets that are and constantly spilling into each other and around your own.

Think about it like a molecule and all the other stuff that's in play. Okay, policy. Did the department and the city that the police officer was employed by follow policy and procedure? No, they didn't allow the officer due process. They, without any of the information being—so they needlessly jeopardized this case, and we can't even talk about whether there was excessive force or not because we jumped the gun, and it was a knee reaction, and we fired the guy. So listen, that taints everything downriver.

Yes.

So even if you—but let's say the officer was wrong, or let's say the officer was right. Well, it's not fair now; it's not equitable because we went off the policy. And guess what? That makes the support—boom! The supports in the—so how does that make our police leadership look? How does that make our community leadership look? You get what I'm trying to say? The local leaders, even a local leader should have said, "Hey, listen, if you're a local leader, if you're one of the people we see on CNN or Fox News all the time praying for people, you need to pray for peace and say, 'Hey, listen, let's slow down and not jump the gun. Let's take the time because we all have skin in the game, and slow this down, give the gift of time and distance, and let calm heads prevail.'" Right? We don't do that.

You know, we're constantly walking this back, and there are a lot of people who have different power and influence that are not, are not being responsible with that at all. Absolutely. They're not taking that time, and that's that's, you know, we can we can talk about personal responsibility all day long, but but it's another contributing factor. It absolutely is, is is, you know, that that's that's another huge problem.

But I I did kind of want to hit on you brought up two things, you gave the Martin Luther example and you talked about loss of control. So those are two huge things, and and with the Martin Luther example of, you know, posting his his his, you know, 95 reasons of problems with the Catholic Church and what they were doing and and, you know, pounding that on the wall, and then of course, that was the same time Gutenberg was inventing the printing press, so it allowed what he did to kind of go viral. And then people kind of said, "Wow, he really revolutionized it, he changed it," which Martin Luther did. However, all of those—my the point I want to make and why it's important to remember about that historical situation is the point is all of those complaints and griefs and grievances that he had, when other people saw it and read it, they didn't go, "Oh, hey, that's an interesting idea, I never thought of it that way." They went, "Holy, I'm thinking the exact same thing! I knew it! I knew I was right!"

So, meaning, it exposed what was already there. He didn't create that revolution; that revolution was waiting to happen, and he just lit the fuse. And I think that's important to remember with all this, especially when these things happen, right? Because we go, "Well, that didn't cause this." Those issues were already there; it exposed it. The problem is is these these cases where it happens are not they're they're never—they're never good, meaning, there's never a good outcome. Someone usually dies, someone sometimes goes to jail or doesn't go to jail. And it, but what I'm saying is, like, there's never a good case to go where everyone can rally behind and go, "You know what, yes, this is that." It just doesn't work that way. And that's part of the issue when there's so many different conflating factors in here where people want to lump it in. They go, "Well, yeah, but but that guy was was, uh, uh, he did this wrong." It's like, "Yeah, maybe, and that's fine, and maybe that's a crime that he should have been prosecuted for." God is due process, but but guess what? He still didn't get to be true—he still didn't deserve to be treated this way. Or the law enforcement example you gave right there where, "Okay, let's say he did everything wrong." You can't fire a guy in 24 hours after an incident. There's no way. There's no way in that short amount of time you've collected all of the evidence and figured out what happened. That's just an impossible timeline right there. There's no way you could do that. So so whether or not he was right or wrong, now now that doesn't even matter. Now it becomes what they do. Meaning if that if there was a bad policy in there or procedure to learn from, the lesson's gone because you did what? You had an emotional overreaction to it, which ended up later on being like, "Oh, that violated his rights and and his and his due process that he's afforded." So I I think when in there when we're having these reactions to the incidents that that's the that's one of the major problems is we can't keep putting a flipping band-aid on these situations.

Right. We also we also have to think in terms of time. Time is is not, it's not relevant in these cases because we can't bring the person back, for example. We can't compel somebody to tell us where the bomb is because the bomb is ticking and it's going to go off. As a matter of fact, we should take more time and make sure that this hits on all the wickets so we can create case law that outlasts us. Isn't that what we're trying to do? Aren't we trying to create a policy that is strong enough that it's going to ensure that these things don't happen again, or are we just trying to say they're punitive? Do you get what I'm saying? What's the difference between a prisoner and a penitentiary? In the penitentiary, they wanted you to be penitent so it blew. They gave you a candle and a Bible and stuff in a wet hole in the ground. What are we trying to accomplish by that, Brian?

You yourself...

Yeah, we're talking about the the difference between, for example, a halfway house on the way from prison to society and a a diversion that that included therapy. And what were the results of that? I mean, basically, just talking about, yeah, you and and there's that this gets into different, I think, different solutions that don't get highlighted. But I just want to make that point.

Yeah, that was that was the case out of Chicago that, you know, this guy's doing basically cognitive behavioral therapy for for, you know, a couple hundred of these people either just being released from prison or different people in the community that had different issues, and it was working. It wasn't working with all of them, but but something like that, because it takes so long to see the results of that, you know, they don't get enough attention or support because, you know, it's it's not some flash in the pan thing that I can look at right now. So there's my point.

So let me tie that together to Martin Luther. Let me tie that together to a mask and a seatbelt. Okay, we're humans. Okay, we're frail, little fragile snowflakes, and the idea is that when we see something that's close enough to our situation, and specifically if the results could involve death, we immediately glam onto that. So if we think about something like that, the recall on on salad in California, and it's also melons, even though they're recalling it because the salmonella and it's going to kill us, people don't get excited about that. You don't see a lot of rallies in the street and all that other stuff because I don't see myself there. But then all of a sudden, when I see this young kid on a traffic stop, and somebody else tasering and center punches him with the gun, "Holy, I can see myself there." Do you get what I'm trying to say? And I don't see the skin color; I see a human. And anybody that says, "Well, I see the skin color, and that's the issue," you missed the point. You missed the complete point. I want to, I need to fear things that may kill me because that's survival of the fittest. That's survival going forward. It's a natural reaction. So it's a natural reaction. So when we take a look at things and we become dichotomous, we lie about them. We say that parachuting resulted in the death of this female, and there had been others. Well, listen, they were parachuting for fun. They weren't parachuting for work.

What do I mean by that? Well, the Army has a training course, and people have to parachute as part of their commitment to the Army so they can go and parachute into dangerous areas. Well, people died there too. You don't see the Army stopping it. The Army tightens up and and looks at it and says, "We have to do this." Well, it's the same thing. I I've met racers in my life, Brian: Joey Chitwood, Jackie Stewart, Al Unser, Al Unser Jr., Kyle, which majigger, and his dad, A.J. Foyt. I even recognized some of these names: A.J. and Cal Petty. Now listen, the ridiculous thing was, I met them all in Colorado through law enforcement. You get what I'm trying to say?

And the weirdest thing in the world is it had nothing to do with me arresting him or something. They had to come in for certain things, like Gerald Ford had to come in to get his license, and Gerald Ford had never driven a Winnebago. Could we take the time to do it? And Unsers and those guys, and Fitipaldi, that's the other guy, they'd all come to Avon, Colorado, because they were going skiing. And while they were there, they wanted to know where the areas were to do this, and they needed a guide or security, so we provided all that at the time. Why am I saying this? Because when we talk about their driving, and they're going at 165, 180 miles an hour for 500 miles, like Indy or something, what happens when they get in a crash? We do not associate ourselves with that because we can't drive that way on the street, right? So it's a foreign thing. Yet there's a small cabal of people that cry, and they wear the colors, and they say, "We have to have reform."

So what's happening here is that we're picking and choosing the things that we decide. You can't do that. Okay, listen to me, how many effing channels are there for ESPN or sports talk? How many channels? Okay, I'm assuming I rarely watch television, but when I do watch television, you know, like Andy Griffith's show or something like that, I have to wade through ESPN One, Two, Three, Ocho, oh, okay, yeah. And they've got the volleyball on horseback tonight. And what I'm seeing when we talk about a cop that killed somebody in the line of duty, the difference is that on ESPN, I'm listening to cogent, SME (Subject Matter Expert) talking heads. Listen, they get out of control once in a while, but I'm talking about a guy that's been a coach, yes, at the professional level for 35 years. He was a player for 27 years. He won awards that other people didn't. Why don't I have that same standard when I'm talking about what you said?

Further with that person too, not only have they been involved in that sport or game, whatever, for a very long time, but they also know how to speak about it. Right? I mean, because that's a that's a difference between like, like Michael Jordan, greatest basketball player in the world, if you're listening, this is a hill I'm willing to die on, so do not send me any hate mail about that, he is. I know, I understand how horribly I biased I am as a kid growing up in Chicago in the '90s and so watching them win after win after win. But yeah, but I get it, but the idea is that doesn't mean he can coach, that doesn't mean he can be a commentator, that doesn't mean... you you get what I'm saying, Greg?

Like, but no, no, not just true. Look at the other side of that coin. So, so could you have a civilian review board for professional basketball policies and procedures? It wouldn't work. Do you get what I'm trying to say? If you've not run up the court, if you've not done the—look, when there was a problem, I don't know about baseball, so I'm not going to say a thing about it, but let's talk about basketball or football or or some of the other sports like hockey. I play hockey, so I understand it. In those sports, when something was found not to be equitable, to make it fair for both sides, they'd change the goal line, they changed the three-point rule, they changed the shot clock. Some policy got changed, right? Some policy got changed. And then the leadership on both sides came in and said, "Look, this is the new rules," and educated us up on it. In addition to that, they have referees and umpires that enforce those rules, right? And they don't enforce and look what happens when the referees found out off-mic, you know, with an open mic saying, "Ah, we should have gave those guys a penalty." Brian, they deal with that swiftly. That guy's gone. He'll never officiate another game. How long does it take to be a referee?

Well, what I'm setting up, Brian, is how to solve a problem. That same level of scrutiny if we applied it to police work—look at the money that we have for professional sports athletes, look at the training, look at the oversight, look at the lawyers, look at the people, the pundits that even talk about it. Why do we not hold our our police and our laws at that standard?

Well, yeah, and right. And I think all of these analogies work, and I think those types of frameworks are exactly what we're talking about that goes back to exactly the same thing I was talking about with the Chick-fil-A example. And then people go, "Well, it's different." And it's it's not. I understand that those are for-profit businesses, and there's a lot of money in that. There's, and we're saying, "Well, there's no there's no money in this policing." And, wait a minute, and profit, I think, or or government, local government, and community involvement, like you're telling me, you're there's no, you know, profit model in here? One, there is. And and two, that doesn't have to be the incentive. Using these type of frameworks will allow for all of the things we're talking about, but will also allow a more economical way to do it, I think. Right? Meaning that the it's an investment.

Everyone looks at anything a city, a local city does as a cost. "Hey, we got to pick up the trash. Oh, that costs this." No, no, it doesn't. It it's the the cost of that is minuscule to to us everyone just throwing their trash out the window into the street, that's going to cause death and disease and, you know, overcrowding of rodents. Like, that that costs more dealing with that than it does to have a truck come by and pick up your trash can. Okay? So so we have to look at it the same way. Look at what this costs us in dollars, in lives, and emotion, and and and just backwards thinking of these situations.

But but then we have to think too, we have to think that those trucks have to have insurance in case they hit a parked car. Those trucks have to have training so they don't run over the kid on my street. Those trucks have to have training so it's safe for that guy to stand on the back to pick up the trash. They have to have support from the community. It has to want them to come in there and take their trash. Yeah. And there has to be rules. You can't do it before six in the morning, even though there's less traffic on the road, you're going to wake me up and piss me off. So we have personal concerns as well, and I would say those are the community concerns that we're talking about. And you're going to lose the support. So for everything, there's an antithesis. For every, you know, I I see those again as those those hexagons that have to find common ground to touch on. And so the more facets we create that are uniform, the more likely we're going to create a connection with the community and the people that are that are our stakeholders. The the people that that want freedom, the people that want law enforcement, the people that want the ability to go out and be safe on their streets, because that's what the police were about. The police weren't just out there to enforce cautious butcher rules. There's a group that does that. I'm trying to say, we talked about the NTSB, we talked about, you know where you got that reference. The idea is that that when when you talk about it, police get calls for service, Brian, that you're right. I believe you're working in law enforcement as long as you've run with the people. You get a call that is ridiculous. "I can't unlock my pantry." "Well, you're the only one that I can die when I dial this number, 130. You know, if you've got somebody that can come by. I don't have a neighbor or a friend or family member. I press these three numbers and someone always responds." Precisely.

So when we look at the NFL, when we look at the NHL, there are certain things that we will accept and we won't accept. Cross-check. We've taken the cross-check out of hockey because it instilled, it created too many injuries. And yesterday, WaPo (Washington Post), I don't know if it was WaPo or Atlantic Monthly or one of the the things they said, "Listen, we've got to be smart and come up with a better less-than-lethal." Listen, you're still a material technological solution. At the end, we're talking people. People know people, Brian. So if we fix people, that's the problem. Look, don't run from the police, I implore you, because running from the police will raise the stakes outside of the the ken of the average citizen. Don't judge the police too harshly until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That's why there's free things that you can do, like do ride-along programs or be involved in your community.

Yeah.

And I'm not saying that a police civilian review board is a bad thing. I'm just saying that if the civilian review board comes out, we should be open kimono and show them, "Here are our policies and procedures, here are our training, offer them the full gamut of what we do," not just decision-making based on an incident.

And and to get this stuff, you know, what you're talking a lot about too is, is it some of this, some of these things have to be incentivized in some way to get people to do them, right? And that's why you brought up, you know, different policies and how do you know if if the if running from the police—if we're going to get rid of that, that's no longer a policy, meaning we're no longer to do a vehicle pursuit or foot chase—you're incentivizing criminals to run, right? So everyone, I I don't like whenever there's no, "Well, this is the law and it's black and white." Like, yeah, I understand, but we have to account for people's behavior. You can't just say, "That's well, that's a bad person and they got to go to jail." It's like, but you're really making this very simple. It's like, "Look, how do we deal with this?" But you're making it too simple, right, because criminal behavior has to take it be taken into account, not their opinion on what they think of the policy. Meaning, you know, it has to be, what is this going to lead to? Okay, well, now they're just going to run. Now your stuff, you're never going to get your stuff back if it's a robbery.

Okay, we do the cost-benefit analysis of it. "Well, does it mitigate a kid getting shot?" Well, maybe, but they also get away with this crime, and then, you know, we have to pay for that, right? We're still paying for that. I mean, the cost of this is is spread among all of us in some manner, whether that's through taxes or higher prices on your car insurance, because that's the going right now. They have to account for the increase in vehicle thefts and the insurance payouts, and now the insurance company goes, "Alright, well, if that's the policy with the police, you're not going to chase anyone, we're not going to get that vehicle back, and we're going to have to pay out, you know, 30, 40, 50 grand every single time." Well, guess what? Everyone who has who has that, everyone who who's paying that insurance company, their rates have to go up to account for that. So we all—the cost is spread in in a number of different ways, and I I think understanding the incentives of different programs are important.

And you also brought up one, I think it's important to hit, is you you talked about it briefly, you said loss of control, right? So when we feel—an important word there is feel—when we feel that we have a loss of control or we don't have control over a situation, that is a, it affects us psychologically, physiologically, sociologically. I mean, it is a huge impact even just even just like you just said, "lost in control." So putting someone in a literal sense, putting someone in handcuffs, that feeling of loss of control, "I can't do anything," it's a very, it's it, I mean, you're immediately in your limbic system going—I mean, your brain's going into survival mode. I don't care what the situation is, right? Yeah.

So let's talk about this briefly about that psychologically. Go go ahead with your point and and then I'll come back.

Oh, yeah. And and that's why in in these situations, why they also get very highly charged and emotional is because we feel as a society or a community as an individual like we don't have any control over anything. Like these police can just do that, and I could get—it's scary—and they can stop me on the street, and they have a lot of power and authority, and, and, you know, there's nothing we can do about it. That feeling of just loss of control, not being able to—that that that's, I think that affects everyone more than they're realizing, and that leads to a lot of these poor decisions.

So that's a great question, Brian, and I would say this: Let's talk about it from the human psyche. We talk about lack of control, and then you brought up how cops make us do certain things like the application of handcuffs or the turning on the red and blues and we have to pull over. We have to produce our license, registration. Okay, every bank in the world forces us to stand in line until we're called. Every Disney-esque type theme park, sometimes we have to stand in line for two hours, Brian, waiting to get in line and show our wristband and show our tickets to get into the stadium over and over if we're asked. And it's inconvenient. So what's the difference?

Well, the difference is what's at the end of it. Anxiety and fear change our DNA. But when we think that we're doing something that's going to be fun, we're willing to put up with all kind of—we're we're willing to say, "The ATM is broken," and take the extra time to walk into the bank and stand in that line because it's our weekend off, and we're going camping, or we have to buy a dinner for my sweetie on Mother's Day that's coming up. Don't forget your mother—mine's dead, now I'm an orphan.

But the idea, Brian, is if you take a look at it from that standpoint, what happens is fear-based, anxiety-based happens. So let me give you a perfect example. Putting the handcuffs on is a physical thing that's happening right in the moment, and the people immediately do the "Should I stay or should I go?" Not so with not showing up for your court case. So you've got a speeding ticket, you broke your tail light, they wrote you a 30-day that you got to get that fixed, and all of a sudden your court date is tomorrow, and your stomach is fumbling and you gotta, "Man, I wanna go to work, but I gotta do this, and I don't have the 135 dollars, and the gosh darn judge is probably going to assign court costs." So all that night I don't sleep, and the next day I let it go. But guess what? I feel a little better after I let it go, don't I? Okay, I don't have that deadline anymore.

Well, I'll tell you what, I have to get pulled over for them to arrest me for a warrant if they issued a warrant, and maybe they're too busy with other things. Do you see the way that goes? But all of a sudden, now when they're standing at the side of the road and they go, "Is that Brian Marren? Brian Virginia Marren, you have a warrant for your arrest, Brian!" And and all of a sudden you're coming out of the car. You see the difference there? If we consider that, then we'll understand why training and support have to follow a policy decision, because if you don't do that, for example, if we were ambiguous and every day we changed what a goal was in hockey, do you get what I'm trying to say? You can't do that. It's only left-handed to do that whenever when anything is is capricious and arbitrary, we get pissed. So all I'm saying is the same thing that you're saying is each one of these issues has to be looked at on their own merit, and cool, calm heads have to prevail because they're so different. And and and we can't put them all in the same ice cube tray.

And guess what? The law was designed for specifically that. And guess what? If criminal law doesn't apply, Brian, civil law is there to make sure that we get the redress. Okay? So the idea is if you were asking me how we build something, I would tell you, make the architecture flexible enough that it's fair across the board, you get what I'm trying to say, rather than just uniform across the board. And and that it's flexible enough that that the the arbiter of justice, the judge or the cop on the side of the street, has rules that he has to live by, but he has the flexibility, "Hey, you're a working man, you're on the way to work, I understand you've got to slow down." It's not, and you know, we're we're going to be in the same that we are right now, year after year.

And some of that some of that is done already, right, in some in some ways. But I I again, part of this is, you know, the this this after reaction of these events. So let's stick with your your your Major League sports analogy and what happens when they get to, you know, NFL. Alright, they get to challenge a call that the referee made. So referee makes a call, and they're going, "No, that's not, we don't think that's what happened. We think they saw it wrong." So they can challenge, and then now they stop the game, right? They go to the booth for review. All the officials look at it, and you have 17 different camera angles to go either say, "No, he made the right call," or go, "You know what, from his perspective, yeah, you know what, it did look like he was out of bounds, but actually if you look at it from this perspective, you can clearly see that there's, you know, green between his foot and the white sideline right there, so he was absolutely in bounds when he took possession of that ball." Right?

So so we have that. But but we we have the—they could, one, that can be done right there in the moment because it's a sport, it's the NFL. Everyone knows the rules. The rules are what they are. There there's not a lot of, you know, leeway either way of the ref either made the right call or the wrong call. And then if we apply that same kind of framework to the situations that occur, well, now you get this feedback from a body camera or camera footage from the area, and you got a whole bunch of people jamming their—not reviewing the evidence and going, "Oh, okay, I see where this went." They're just jamming their opinion in there about what what actually occurred, and they're trying to fit a narrative of something else. You know, it would be almost like if if some commentator was like, "See, I told you, another reason why we need to get rid of the..." It's like, "Wait, wait a minute, wait a minute, that's not what happened here!" Like, right.

Another reason means that you're you're you're in a justice collector on some level that we don't know about. That's not fair. We're talking about the overall, you know, how do we make the call right, and what's the overall goal here, and what's the possibility? And like you said, you have to take each case one at a time. Well, if if for the someone who's uneducated in that area, doesn't know the law, and doesn't know the policies and procedures, you know, there's a lot of people that don't clearly, uh, there's a lot of people who don't understand the Constitution. Should their voice matter as much as a lawyer? No, you're you're everyone gets an opinion, but not not all opinions are weighted equally. Right? Some have some hold more weight and home more more volume to it based on their knowledge, experience, and and and everything that goes into it. But but Greg, I mean, when it when the voices become that loud, you're right, the loudest voice gets heard, and that's the policy that we want to implement first because we want it to go away because we will get securities. We can go all the way back into history, and we should know that.

Oh, yeah. And we feel better, and we think we had some control over that situation. "Look at what we accomplished, right? We we we were able to change this policy." Well, just because you change the policy doesn't doesn't mean the situation is going to get any better. And that that's why we're looking at it. But that's the idea of what we keep saying, what I've said in the last couple of months, we've never taken this seriously. We've never taken a step back because everyone goes, "No, we got to do something right now! Right now we have to change!" No, where do you want this to be in five years, ten years, 20 years, 40 years? What's that legacy you want to leave behind first time? Because that's the point. That's how it gets better for my kids, right? That's how the next generation gets to have these situations won't occur if we do it right for the next people.

Yeah, we have to learn and skin our knees every generation. Every person has to skin their knees and learn, and that blows sometimes, but but we don't because we don't learn from history, right? We're not taking in these historical perspectives and going, "How did it, what what happened before? Why did this what led us to this point?" Exactly. And what's gone wrong? Has has the the size increased? Has the clearly defining the problem? Because sometimes I already have my agenda of what I think the reason is, and I'm going to go back through history and find examples of it, and that's just my confirmation bias.

But so take a look, let me give you a local situation because sometimes it's simpler to look at it from a local level and implement rather change than it is global change, right? So if you take a look, and it was for Greta Thunberg out there, if you take a look at Crested Butte, Gunnison, both small mountain towns, not a lot of people live here. But they, exactly, "How dare you!" Okay? And we take a look at the speed limits. So characteristically, people want to vacation here, but they want to follow the rules here because they're on vacation. And it's a hard thing for most people to understand. I'm right back to my Disney defense, right? So all of a sudden, the people come up with the idea, "Well, if you lower the speed limit and enforce speeding, you're going to change the behavior of humans." Well, they clearly don't understand Human Behavior Pattern Recognition and Analysis. You can make the speed limit 6.2 miles an hour and have a person with a club every mile, okay? That's not going to change the behavior of humans. Humans don't work that way. Now, if you change the roadway and follow a European mindset here—I'm going to be called a socialist again—and you put in a roundabout, a roundabout is a feature that naturally slows people down. Yes, and as you come into it, you have to make choices, and it forces you to think, and you don't see a lot of fatal rollover accidents at a roundabout, do you? You get what I'm trying to say? So so the idea is, clearly defining the problem will lead to a cogent, cognitive, well-thought-out solution that'll likely work.

I I could do an entire podcast just on roundabouts. It's a way of thinking. But that's what I love being in foreign countries. One, when they have roundabouts because they're awesome. And then they tried to put in a couple here where I live, and no one knows—no one knows how to use it. They either go—they either just stop before getting into the roundabout completely and and not sure how it works, or they just, they don't yield to the people already in the roundabout, they just go. And I'm like, "Oh my God!" Because I love Mike—because for that reason. Like, they actually make more sense in most situations than having a four-stop intersection. But that's that's a it's another applicability of how human behavior works and how we we have a hard time in the United States seeing it that way.

And since he threw back to Heisenberg, everything we just talked about, Heisenberg said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Okay? So what this is what we're talking about, it's, yeah, if we're not asking the right questions about this, then we're not going to get the right answers. We're going to get an answer. We will be either anxious because we're not getting it, so lower that speed limit more and put up more signs. You understand what I'm saying? So the the problem, Brian, is what you you brought up is a great way of framing what the answer is. If we continue to treat the symptoms, are we ever treating the cause or the disease itself? Do you get what I'm trying to say? So you're saying, "Okay, let's work on that fever. I know you've got vaginal dropsy, so here's a cream for that. And you also got a headache because the vaginal dropsy medicine makes you nauseous, so let's give you this." And that's clearly not a doctor, so yeah, I'm making it up as I go along. But the idea is what you take a look at here is why we're in the state that we are. And then it's okay to advertise stuff on television that says, "Listen, we have not tested or evaluated any of this," and people are spending a billion dollars on it. I'm saying that if we frame—because you've already done a great job of framing the problem, framing the contributing factors—I'm saying if we incentivize America by saying, and you said it with the policy, "If you choose to color outside the policy, you're dealt with immediately." But let's incentivize it by saying, "Who are the corporate magnates that have made a bunch of money on this?" I don't want to make it federal or national because there's 18,000 different...

Yeah, you don't need...

And they have to go local. But what we do have to do is we have to say that, "Listen, here is a group of rules," oh, I don't know, "like the Constitution that we all agree in principle to. And then we should have somebody, like, I don't know, a prosecuting attorney, that when something goes wrong has the full power to enforce or say he does not want to enforce one of those rules based on artifacts and evidence." And then, you know what else we should have for the people, Brian? We should have something like a defense attorney, and we should have a community that has like aldermen and community elders that get together, Brian. I'm just telling you, we've got to roll back to civics. If we went back to civics and we understood more and we got involved more. Listen, one of the things about having a technological society and apps on the phone is there's not an app for this. So I can't have my way out of it; I actually have to think.

I I agree with, you know, not providing material solution and not trying to come up with some new way of doing things. Everything—every answer is already—every question has already been answered, right? You go back through history and and learn all of this stuff. It's been the same problem. Now, a lot of times it's everyone's not able to—well, what we do too much is analyze, right? Everyone's going to write a book and create a new science behind something and analyze the con—they're going to create words for it, right? And there's there's going to be a new way of thinking and, "Hey, did you think about it from this, you know, bias that humans have?" And there's a new one coming out every week. So and those aren't solving the problem, right, because we're trying to recreate something or come up with something new when it's already been solved and it's already been there, and there's already there's already answers. And and, you know, that's that's a natural tendency for humans to want to do that. So we we over-analyze everything. We we try to call—I mean, we collect too much information, we over-analyze, Greg, and we don't conceptualize.

So so that that's what I'm saying is we don't actually do this. So what we mentally—we have to do this. So what, Brian? Because if not, what we do is we say stupid to each other. We say, like, "Oh, it was so much better 35 years ago." What, when we were in fear of the bomb? Yeah. When we were people were dying? My uncle Nick had polio. Yeah. What the is wrong with us? Or or we look back and we go, "Oh, that Marcus Aurelius is really going on." That's how that where that's Marcus Aurelius would be working. He would be working at a library now, and we would come in and go, "Hey, Marcus, where's the book on yoga or something?" We do not understand that there are cause and effect. There are consequences for our statements and actions, and you're exactly right. Before we say that we're going to slap the table on this, let's take a look historically and see how it worked other places. And guess what? If it if it went well, then maybe we should embrace the concept. If it failed, maybe you should fix the concept. You're you're spot on with your analysis.

And I think too, because you you said it again too, and we need to focus. Technology can aid us now in ways that it couldn't before. So we don't need a overarching national policy of, "This is how it's going to be," because what works in Atlanta isn't going to work in Chicago, and that's not going to work in Tulsa. You know what I'm saying? So look at the number of different pizza recipes, and you'll see what Brian is talking about.

But here's the thing...

But go to the go back to the Chick-fil-A model. That works in all those areas. Why? Because because of their process of what they do. Now, maybe some area—now, you go to the south, and chicken is more popular than it is in in was in Wisconsin or California or something, okay? So you're you're going to target those markets better if that's what you're trying to do, but the idea is the model works, and it can be—and it's a it's a framework. So you don't need, you don't need to go, "What did they do in Atlanta? Let's do that, let's do that same exact thing right here!" It's like, "Well, no, you can take what did they learn from that model, what worked? Let's let's conceptualize that for our situation here on the ground." "Hey, you know what?" And and it goes back to the same thing with the the the NFL analogy with the replay stuff. "Okay, well, that's what we're doing for the NFL. But, you know what, maybe at a different level, at a smaller level, well, we don't need all of that, but that concept is good of challenging." Right? You get what I'm saying? It's it's all about make what elements work and use those, conceptualize that for for that local area. And the beauty of technology is now local solutions can happen faster, and and then they can get found out about. Meaning, you know, so Dallas comes up with the greatest way to figure out—they got a lot of illegal street racing going on right now, last year it's been huge, huge, they're like way off the charts what it used to be. So let's say they develop some solution to combat that street racing. "Man, we get this policy, and it worked really well." Well, then other cities are going to find out and go, "Okay, how did you do that? How does that work for Detroit now? How do we do that up here?" Because it's a different demographic of people, it's kind of different vehicles being raced, so so it's a different method.

Culture becomes context. We must—your method works, right? And we're just going to apply it in this situation.

And that's along again with the policy, training, and support. Does it have the support of the community? Does it have the support financially that it needs? Does it have the support from the people implementing it? And the people that came up with the policy, training—did we train to a standard? Did we train the the people who are enforcing the policy and training the people or educating or educating the people who who are are being affected by this policy? And then, you know, are all those things in line? And I think if if we take a look at it, it doesn't become more complicated; it becomes it becomes easier to define a practical solution.

But be realistic as well. And what I mean by realistic is that some employee at Chick-fil-A somewhere in the United States is involved in the military. Yeah, okay? And and one is thanks, now I'll never have their—there goes breakfast. But but the idea is that that some 7-Eleven clerk is stealing from the till. Yeah. So so listen, when when you want to say, "Those effing cops are up to no good," what you're not doing is you're not doing your research. You're not seeing how how small the number of offenses that we're trying to categorize them. And look at General Motors, there's another perfect example for it. Okay, there's rules on how to make a car, and GM and Toyota and and every other car manufacturer have to follow those general rules. The cars come out completely different, and certain people like this car here and they don't like that car. And some people buy a four-wheel drive, and they never will have to lock it into four. And I live in a place where you have to use four-wheel drive. So what? So what? The rules and the guidelines are there, and most people follow them. And when they they're not followed, we have a recall. When they're not followed, you can sue the manufacturer. When a GM executive has his hand in the till, he's found out, and he's fired. Checks and balances, Brian. We can't do this this pendulous sweep because there's too much emotion. We have to allow time to calm down and take a look at this in context. Are there racist cops? Yes, but there's a racist guy that works at my gosh darn oil lube place in Gunnison. Yeah. There's a racist person that works at the airport baggage handling in the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport. Stop looking at those things and saying, "See, see, this is what I mean," confirmation bias, and let's start looking at framing the solution. Our next talk is going to be about suggested solutions. Okay? But we're not going to come in and say, "Here's the finished product." We're going to show how to frame the answer. I mean, that's that's what we do here, Behavior Pattern Recognition Analysis. We first recognize the patterns, and we say, "These are good ML (Machine Learning) codes, these are bad MD (Medical Doctor, or maybe just a generic "bad" designation based on context) codes," and then the analysis portion helps us decide, "So what? What do we do next?" That's it. It's in a nutshell.

Right. And then and then implementing those procedures and policies in a framework, in a process by getting the local and and community leaders and the police involved. How, Brian? Through leadership. Clearly defining the mission, right? The strategic level goals and then operationalizing that information, how we're going to get there. And and then making sure that it filters down to the boots on the ground, the tactical layer. So so we have a full 360 approach to it.

Yeah, and and again, we we talked about a number of different areas, we talked about a number of different subjects in here, but all kind of under that umbrella of policy, training, and support. And it's another, it's just a way to define it and look at it and and know a way forward, right? If we identify the stakeholders being the community, leadership, police for this specific one, you know, then then the next part would be the policy, training, and support. And those three have to be each one. If because whether you start, "Alright, hey, we need to get the support from the community." Okay, support for what? And what are we trying to get from, "Hey, we need more training." Okay, training for what? What policies do we need training on? And do does everyone support those policies and do you support the training with enough funding? Your policies, why are we doing this, you know? And when we're crafting this policy, how are we going to implement and train people that standard, and how are we going to support this policy? Because just throwing that band-aid on there isn't going to work. And if I keep those three, you know, buckets and I overlay them on each other as I'm going forward, no matter which angle you're coming in, you have to go through all three, right? So it's like going through three layers of security. You have to go through all three no matter which way you go through it, it doesn't matter, but you have to go through all three. And and it helps frame it a little bit better.

And we could we could do an entire episode on why three, and the easiest way to simplify it for you right now is we want to make sure that we can come up with a framework to solve future decisions, not just this one. We're not just talking about this thing; we're talking about life in general. And Pi 3.1415927, it goes out so many things that if we went out to the 15th, what are we solving? As long as we understand the 3.14, we can all agree to the concept, agree to the basics, and we can get somewhere with this. So Brian and I are trying to move off the X and move decisively forward by limiting it to these buckets. Certainly, there are more buckets, and certainly your situation is probably different than than one that we brought up, but again, we're trying to show you how, not trying to come to a conclusive answer.

Alright, well, on that, I think that's a good kind of kind of place to to wrap up, Greg. And I gotta go get some Chick-fil-A breakfast.

God, I just—I'm not, don't forget, hey everyone, if you're listening, so you kind of threw me off there with the Chick-fil-A breakfast. If you're listening, we do have the Patreon site where we're updating, and we've got a whole bunch of content on there, so you can go ahead and follow us along on there. We appreciate it. All the proceeds go into kind of making the podcast better and get a few things going. So we appreciate those of you who are on there listening. Shout shout out to us anytime you want. If you've got any questions, you can message us on there, and I'll answer directly, of course. And everyone, don't forget to follow us on social media: Instagram, Facebook. We're always on there doing stuff, so please follow us along on there. And don't forget that training changes behavior.