Speaker 1: M Hey everyone, it's me your buddy Josh, and for
Speaker 1: this week's s Y s K Selects, I've chosen for
Speaker 1: you guys, my buddies, how Miranda Rights Work. It's a
Speaker 1: pretty great episode. It's full of stuff like irony, interesting history,
Speaker 1: uh and sometimes unpalatable but important civil rights. So I
Speaker 1: hope you all enjoy it. It's one of my favorites.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff you Should Know from House Stuff Works
Speaker 1: dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh
Speaker 1: Clark and there's Charles W Chuck Bryant, and um this
Speaker 1: stuff you should know. Jerry just told us right before
Speaker 1: she pressed record, don't forget to be clever. What is
Speaker 1: that about? I don't know, man, I pressure I'm a
Speaker 1: little to own off right now. Well, I think maybe
Speaker 1: because you said Miranda rights sort of named after the
Speaker 1: Sex in the City character. Is that what you're talking about?
Speaker 1: That was like forty five minutes ago. It's a call back.
Speaker 1: So I guess that was clever in Cherry's book. That's
Speaker 1: the thing. Like, I didn't even consider that clever, you know,
Speaker 1: juvenile maybe so Miranda from Sex in the City. So
Speaker 1: what was your response to that one? I don't remember
Speaker 1: what I said. I thought it was fairly clever. We'll
Speaker 1: just skip over that. You said you have the right
Speaker 1: to remain fabulous. Oh yeah, that's right. So that's the
Speaker 1: recap of a conversation we had a little while ago. Everybody, well,
Speaker 1: people always say that I want to know what happens
Speaker 1: behind the scenes. Just tom foolery. There you go, Chuck. Yes,
Speaker 1: I know that. Uh, you and I have both been
Speaker 1: arrested many times, and we've done some time in the
Speaker 1: stir and all that, so we know what miranda rights are.
Speaker 1: Not true, But the average person also knows what Miranda
Speaker 1: rights are because they're so ubiquitous on every cop show,
Speaker 1: every lawyer show, every every show. I think they show
Speaker 1: up on like e er, it's still on, it's on, right.
Speaker 1: I have no idea that I'm like season seven. I
Speaker 1: have no idea. I don't think it is. I had
Speaker 1: a pretty good long run, sure, But Miranda rights are
Speaker 1: just this thing that have become totally ingrained in our culture.
Speaker 1: We can all say it, well, let's say it together.
Speaker 1: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say
Speaker 1: can and will be used against you in a court
Speaker 1: of law. But hey, buddy, don't fret. You have the
Speaker 1: right to an attorney, and if you cannot afford one,
Speaker 1: one will be appointed to you. Right. And then over time,
Speaker 1: apparently some agencies have added and if you waive these rights,
Speaker 1: you can invoke them at any time. Yeah, I hadn't
Speaker 1: heard that one. They know, they hadn't made it to
Speaker 1: TV yet, really, right, Yeah, you know the goes like
Speaker 1: short and sweet. I'm not even gonna tell you that. Yeah, Castle,
Speaker 1: he's all business. Yeah. Is he a cop though? And
Speaker 1: I think he's a private investigator, although I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: So he wouldn't have to mirandize anybody, but he just
Speaker 1: cast so he he does. I've never seen it. I
Speaker 1: love Nathan Fillon though, Oh who doesn't. Yeah, he's a
Speaker 1: nice guy. But this idea that Miranda rights are. You know,
Speaker 1: they're everywhere and everybody knows them and knows what they
Speaker 1: You know that they exist. But the first of all,
Speaker 1: the case behind him, I think is probably unknown, and
Speaker 1: then secondly, like what they're designed to do, really, the
Speaker 1: real nuts and bolts of it, I hadn't. It hadn't
Speaker 1: really occurred to me, even though it's pretty self evident
Speaker 1: when you think about it. Yeah, and it seems really straightforward,
Speaker 1: but it can't get a little tricky, uh, which will
Speaker 1: discuss how that happens. Well. So the idea of the
Speaker 1: Miranda rights is fairly recent, um, goes back to nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty six, the case called Miranda versus Arizona, the Arizona Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: which is like the legal profession came and be bothered
Speaker 1: to include the s when they abbreviate versus. You know.
Speaker 1: And we should also point out that, um, it wasn't
Speaker 1: just this one case. Uh, it was Miranda v. Arizona
Speaker 1: gets all the press because the name Miranda, but it
Speaker 1: was actually four cases that they consolidated. Um. But we
Speaker 1: want to give Vignera v. New York West over the
Speaker 1: United States, and California v. Stewart their due as being
Speaker 1: part of this thing. And they basically all the cases
Speaker 1: were similar in that them there were confessions after interrogations, um,
Speaker 1: and those confessions were used against these various people. Right.
Speaker 1: But we're with Miranda though. The lawyers of these um,
Speaker 1: well not just us, I mean everybody does. It's called
Speaker 1: it's the Miranda case, the Miranda laws, the Miranda rights.
Speaker 1: You're miranda ized, you know. Um. But the the the
Speaker 1: whole point behind these In all of the cases, the
Speaker 1: that the complainants had was that they're the people who
Speaker 1: committed these crimes and made these confessions, and we're are
Speaker 1: convicted for him. We're not aware that they didn't have
Speaker 1: to talk to the police. Right, And this is actually
Speaker 1: the Miranda case goes back to nineteen sixty six. But
Speaker 1: the American right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in
Speaker 1: the constitution Fifth Amendment to to refrain from self incrimination.
Speaker 1: That goes back to, like you said, the Fifth Amendment
Speaker 1: basically says that you don't have to tell on yourself.
Speaker 1: The cops can't make you talk, is what that is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but until nineteen sixty six they I guess you just
Speaker 1: needed to be you know, up on your constitutional knowledge.
Speaker 1: And then in nineteen sixty six they eventually will get
Speaker 1: to the case they said, you know, maybe we should
Speaker 1: start telling people this when we arrest them. Um. So
Speaker 1: let's go back in time to nineteen sixty three. Uh
Speaker 1: in Phoenix, Arizona, UM, the cops picked up Ernesto Miranda
Speaker 1: for questioning and a kidnapping and rate case. His car
Speaker 1: was spotted near of the scene of the crime. He
Speaker 1: was called in. When he got there, he was like,
Speaker 1: I didn't do this. Man like, he was completely cooperative.
Speaker 1: It's like, I didn't do any of this. Two hours later,
Speaker 1: an interrogation they had he was not identified in a lineup,
Speaker 1: but the cops said, the girl identified you in the
Speaker 1: lineup and he went, oh, well, I guess I think
Speaker 1: his direct quote was, well, I guess I ought to
Speaker 1: tell you about it then, And so the cops lied
Speaker 1: to him. And this is a clear case of you know,
Speaker 1: like not doing things the right way. Well, this no,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is upheld the use of deception by
Speaker 1: police in interrogation. They can lie there their tails off
Speaker 1: to you, right, but not if you're not Miranda. I
Speaker 1: That was the point is he didn't know that he
Speaker 1: could just be quiet and not say anything. So he
Speaker 1: just volunteered the information, signed a written confession. And that's
Speaker 1: the whole point. And that's what the justices in the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court who heard the Miranda case and all the
Speaker 1: other cases that combined to make it um we're getting
Speaker 1: at was that you, when you are being interrogated by
Speaker 1: the place you're in their custody, they are allowed to
Speaker 1: use deception. They are allowed to UM use all sorts
Speaker 1: of tactics to core course, you two talk, But if
Speaker 1: you're not aware that you don't have to talk, then
Speaker 1: what you're saying amounts to an involuntary confession and hence
Speaker 1: shouldn't be able to be used against you because you
Speaker 1: have a constitutional right against self incrimination. If you're informed
Speaker 1: that you have that right, then you are making the
Speaker 1: decision to go ahead and confess against yourself and you're
Speaker 1: waiving that right, yes, and that can be used in
Speaker 1: court exactly, so they give you the option essentially. So
Speaker 1: this is what the whole case was about. UM. In
Speaker 1: ninety six, like we said, the Supreme Court heard this
Speaker 1: case and ruled he was convicted we should say, right
Speaker 1: based on that confession and sentenced to thirty years I believe,
Speaker 1: and that the Supreme Court case was part of an
Speaker 1: appeal that's right from that three years later they heard
Speaker 1: this case. Yeah, and apparently, like the the other three
Speaker 1: people probably represent even more than just those four cases total.
Speaker 1: Usually when the Supreme Court here's something, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of it going on in the courts. Yeah, yeah, um,
Speaker 1: And they said in a five to four decision, you
Speaker 1: know what the the suspect has to be read his rights,
Speaker 1: which one now'll cause miranda rights. Yeah, and they specifically said, um,
Speaker 1: prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of
Speaker 1: the defendant unless it did demonstrates the use of procedural
Speaker 1: safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self incrimination. But
Speaker 1: the key there is custodial interrogation and established a couple
Speaker 1: of things. Is one, you can't self incriminate from the
Speaker 1: moment you're in custody. Um, So like it's not like
Speaker 1: you're on trial or something, and that any confession is
Speaker 1: uh involuntary basically. And again the reason that they're differentiating
Speaker 1: between in custody and not in custody is because once
Speaker 1: you're in custody, the cops can do things like lie
Speaker 1: to you or something like that. That's right, um. And
Speaker 1: in custody is those the three key words taken into
Speaker 1: custody or is where all the gray area has been
Speaker 1: since then and still is today. Yeah, Because they were
Speaker 1: pretty clear in their ruling, like, yeah, this person has
Speaker 1: to be read their rights, and how let's even print
Speaker 1: some cards for police officers to carry around with them
Speaker 1: so they can read off of the card if they
Speaker 1: have to. Yeah, and we should point out that Miranda.
Speaker 1: Actually they retried him without his confession and his girlfriend
Speaker 1: um said he he confessed to me, so that was
Speaker 1: used in court. So he was found guilty again since
Speaker 1: the twenty thirty years again, paroled after five years and
Speaker 1: then sold those little Miranda cards with his autograph on
Speaker 1: him for a while for like a buck fifty. And
Speaker 1: then he was stabbed to death in a bar fight
Speaker 1: in the nine Yes, and the suspect who stabbed him
Speaker 1: was read his Miranda rights and so he never talked
Speaker 1: and he walked. Really, oh my god, the irony. It's
Speaker 1: definitely irony. Wow, And like the the truest form of
Speaker 1: the word. That's right, man. So custodial interrogation is is
Speaker 1: one of the keys here. Um in custody is where
Speaker 1: it gets a little hinky. Like if you're in the
Speaker 1: back of a police car and you get your handcuffs on,
Speaker 1: then you're in custody, right, that's pretty straightforward. Or even
Speaker 1: if you don't have handcuffs on, if you're if the
Speaker 1: cops lock you in the car and you're you're are
Speaker 1: it's understood by you that you're not allowed to get out.
Speaker 1: You're in police custody. Right. The official definition of custody
Speaker 1: and the mirand decision is quote unquote denial of complete
Speaker 1: freedom of action. But that's open to interpretation. You know
Speaker 1: it is because, um, you know, if you're being if
Speaker 1: you're handcuffed and you're putting the back of a locked
Speaker 1: police car, you're obviously denied freedom of action. You obviously
Speaker 1: have to be mirandized. Right, you can bang your head
Speaker 1: on the little clear glass in front of you, right,
Speaker 1: What were you saying in police chases like the the
Speaker 1: you can defecate or urinate or whatever, do whatever you want,
Speaker 1: but that is not freedom of action. Um. It's been
Speaker 1: brought up though that because of the um the legal
Speaker 1: authority that cops represent with their uniforms and their outwardly
Speaker 1: worn guns and you know, tasers, all that stuff, their
Speaker 1: mirrored sunglasses, that they have some sort of um, they
Speaker 1: project a sort of just talking to a cop, a
Speaker 1: person might feel detained. Yeah, it's an implied Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's like an implied detention. Like if the
Speaker 1: cop came to my front door and said he had
Speaker 1: some questions for me regarding a crime. I don't think
Speaker 1: I would feel even though it's within my right, I
Speaker 1: don't think I would feel like I was able to
Speaker 1: say no, actually, I'm going to go to the grocery
Speaker 1: store right now, right exactly, and just walk past them
Speaker 1: and get in my car, or even I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to ask you guys to leave, which again you said
Speaker 1: it is your right to do. They haven't placed you
Speaker 1: into custody, but you you don't have to be Miranda's
Speaker 1: in this situation because you can tell the cops to leave.
Speaker 1: If you are in an interrogation room and you tell
Speaker 1: the cops to leave, they're not gonna listen to you.
Speaker 1: If they're on your front doorstep and you tell them
Speaker 1: to leave, they are supposed to listen to you, and
Speaker 1: because of that, you're not being you. You have freedom
Speaker 1: of movement. You can go back in your house, you
Speaker 1: can go to the grocery store. You can tell the
Speaker 1: cops to leave. So, even though the perception might be
Speaker 1: that you are being detained by the cops just by
Speaker 1: their very presence, and you don't feel like you can
Speaker 1: tell them to leave, the law isn't this. This law
Speaker 1: isn't designed to let you be slippery, right, like a
Speaker 1: trap fix stop, for instance, is a is a kind
Speaker 1: of a not weird. But if you get stopped by
Speaker 1: a cop and you'd say, um, you know, I've got
Speaker 1: five pounds of weed in my trunk by the way,
Speaker 1: mr officer, you caught me, that can be used in
Speaker 1: court because that is a non custodial situation, right, which
Speaker 1: is weird. Though I didn't realize that a traffic stop
Speaker 1: is considered non custodials. That mean you can just drive
Speaker 1: off because then you know, then that's a custodial situation.
Speaker 1: So does that mean that you can drive off legally
Speaker 1: or does that mean that the courts just it is
Speaker 1: a gray area that the courts of That means you're fleeing.
Speaker 1: That means you're evading, evading what arrests a traffic stop? Okay, well,
Speaker 1: then that means you can't leave, you don't have freedom
Speaker 1: of movement. Therefore, that's a custodial situation and you should
Speaker 1: have to be mirandized when you're pulled over. Well, hey,
Speaker 1: you talked to the Supreme Court, my friend, I've been trying.
Speaker 1: But I do have a question if there are any
Speaker 1: um constitutional lawyers or any kind of lawyer really who
Speaker 1: knows what they're talking about. Defense attorney, Um, I'm very
Speaker 1: curious about that, Like, are you allowed legally to just
Speaker 1: drive off once a cop pulls you over since it's
Speaker 1: a non custodial situation. My answer is no. I would
Speaker 1: imagine no too, because every time you do, they well,
Speaker 1: because you have committed a crime and the in the
Speaker 1: cop has has pulled you over. Maybe uh, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean that's where the language gets tricky. You're not
Speaker 1: in custody, maybe you're temporary detained a bit of there's
Speaker 1: some specific language that allows for this. And I would
Speaker 1: never like argue this with a cop who pulled me over.
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm getting at. I'm just genuinely, like,
Speaker 1: I'm genuinely curious. If you can't drive off, then how
Speaker 1: is it a non constidious situation? That's my question. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a good question. Um, but that shows the slippery
Speaker 1: slope in the gray area, you know, right, And like
Speaker 1: you said, I mean if you say, hey, I've got
Speaker 1: five pounds of weed in my trunk and the cop
Speaker 1: never mirandized you, and then after they says, well, you're
Speaker 1: under arrest, and then he mirandizes you and you shut up.
Speaker 1: From that point on, they can still use that initial
Speaker 1: exact confession because it was non custodial. Yeah. Uh. And
Speaker 1: here's the other thing. A lot of people, well not
Speaker 1: a lot of people, some folks may be confused by
Speaker 1: if you're not read your Miranda rights, then you just
Speaker 1: you get released or whatever. Right, not true at all.
Speaker 1: That just means that they can't use what you have
Speaker 1: said in court, and any ancillary, uh incriminating evidence that
Speaker 1: came from that confession can't be used either, right, Like
Speaker 1: if they arrest you and you say, they tell you
Speaker 1: you're placed under arrest, and then they're like, so, um,
Speaker 1: we're going to get some tacos rather than here's what
Speaker 1: we have to tell you about your Miranda rights, And
Speaker 1: then you say, I've got a bunch of weed on me, Like,
Speaker 1: they can't use that confession about the weed two against
Speaker 1: you because you hadn't been mirandized. You've been told that
Speaker 1: the cops wanted tacos. Yeah. I wonder what keeps someone
Speaker 1: from voluntarily talking about evidence so it won't be able. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: we are criminal minds right here. I'm sure there's workarounds
Speaker 1: for all this. You're like Mandy Patinken and like the
Speaker 1: rest of the cast right here at this table and Entel. No,
Speaker 1: it is any in Criminal Minds. I don't know. He's
Speaker 1: in the Homeland. I watch that. He's also in the
Speaker 1: Prince's Pride. He's in Nego Montoya Monday thinkin. He was
Speaker 1: also the alien cop in Alien Nation. A lot of
Speaker 1: people don't know that. Jimmy Cohn, you never saw Alien Nation.
Speaker 1: That was that good. That was a great movie. It
Speaker 1: always looked silly to me. I'll tell you what when
Speaker 1: you're it is a great movie. Yeah, it was cruel.
Speaker 1: Did you see that one? Yeah? It was nothing like
Speaker 1: I had, like a good plot and it was like
Speaker 1: to live in Die in l A with aliens right
Speaker 1: or enemy Mine on Earth? Yeah, I never saw that one.
Speaker 1: It was. It was just kind of the same deal.
Speaker 1: It's like it's Lucas at Jr. In an alien suit
Speaker 1: and Dennis Quaid, right, Uh, Randy quick, Dennis Quaid. It
Speaker 1: definitely wasn't Randy. It wasn't like banking Dennis Quaid. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure. All right, So Miranda rights here is the
Speaker 1: requisite meandering tangent. Uh So there's an important thing we
Speaker 1: haven't covered yet. Um, in regards to Miranda rights. And
Speaker 1: it was recently got a lot of press with the
Speaker 1: bombings in Boston, and that is the public safety exception
Speaker 1: UM in the case of the the Boston bombing. What
Speaker 1: was his name, Uh, Joe Car Sarnia. Okay, so jos
Speaker 1: Car Joe Car did Joe Car. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: ways to say it that are wrong, and then there's
Speaker 1: one right one which I may have had in there.
Speaker 1: So he is in the hospital. They everyone knows what happened.
Speaker 1: You know that the bombings went off. The one brother
Speaker 1: was killed, they caught the other one, uh, and he
Speaker 1: was wounded. And so he was in a hospital and
Speaker 1: they had what they called an urgent public safety interview
Speaker 1: in the hospital with out reading him his rights. He's
Speaker 1: asking for an attorney. They're like, you're not getting an attorney.
Speaker 1: Why why don't you tell us what's going on? And
Speaker 1: he did, Yeah, he did. He confessed to the bombing.
Speaker 1: He told them about um possible other bombs. I think
Speaker 1: that's how they found out that the apartment was possibly
Speaker 1: rigged with explosives, or at very least there were explosives
Speaker 1: in his apartment, his brother's apartment, UM. And they found
Speaker 1: all this out by denying him his right to keep quiet. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people were saying, well, you guys
Speaker 1: just blew the case. You guys, why didn't you mirandize him?
Speaker 1: And it was because of this public safety exemption that
Speaker 1: came about, um that the Supreme Court ruled on in Yeah,
Speaker 1: New York v. Quarrels. Benjamin Quarrels was in custody at
Speaker 1: a grocery store in nineteen eighty and rape victim had
Speaker 1: identified him, and the cop frist them and said, hey,
Speaker 1: you've got an empty gun holster. Here is there a
Speaker 1: gun nearby? And he was like, yeah, it's right over there.
Speaker 1: Cop Win got the gun unloaded. It obviously secured the scene.
Speaker 1: And that became a court case because he was the
Speaker 1: gun evidence was thrown out. An appellate court agreed, and
Speaker 1: then later on the Supreme Court said, no, you know
Speaker 1: what that's called, Uh, you know, securing the scene. That's
Speaker 1: a public safety exception. You can't have a gun loaded
Speaker 1: gun in there. You can't have bombs waiting to go
Speaker 1: off potentially somewhere else. So forget the mirandizing. You need
Speaker 1: to secure everything, right and um, once that once that
Speaker 1: threat to public safety is secured, then you have to
Speaker 1: mirandize them. Yeah, in which the Boston case, he just
Speaker 1: shut up after that, so too late. Yeah, exactly, the
Speaker 1: Feds had gotten all they wanted out of him and
Speaker 1: were like sure, whatever, And apparently a judge ordered the
Speaker 1: FEDS to mirandize the guy after like two days of
Speaker 1: this questioning. I bet that was a pretty satisfying reading
Speaker 1: of the rights at that point. I'm sure, you know,
Speaker 1: because they knew they were covered. But I mean, this
Speaker 1: is such a gestapo tactic too, like, well, this question
Speaker 1: you about everything we want for two days until the
Speaker 1: judge ordered us to mirandize. That means that some attorneys
Speaker 1: are going to have to go through all two days
Speaker 1: of that confession to pick out what at what point
Speaker 1: the public safety exemption was basically exhausted. And I mean,
Speaker 1: you can argue that any question that has to do
Speaker 1: with possible future terrorist attacks is you know, preventing or
Speaker 1: protecting public safety. Yeah, but it's just like, uh, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it definitely skirts the spirit of the law,
Speaker 1: I would think. Yeah, And I found an article written
Speaker 1: by the guy who originally I think wrote the Quarrels
Speaker 1: verdict and he he was like, you know what, in
Speaker 1: the case with the Boston bomber, you they shouldn't even
Speaker 1: done that anyway, because there was so much evidence they
Speaker 1: didn't even need these confessions, and it was in the
Speaker 1: true spirit of trying to secure public safety to find
Speaker 1: if there was other explosives. But from that point on,
Speaker 1: they're like, it was completely unnecessary because the guy was
Speaker 1: convicted just from you know, the evidence was so strong
Speaker 1: that they didn't even need that confession exactly. So like
Speaker 1: after they found out about the bombs or whatever, whether
Speaker 1: their word weren't bombs, then it seems to me like
Speaker 1: the public safety exemption would have been exhausted and they
Speaker 1: would have had to have mirandized him. It's a slippery slope.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it's not like the CIA has to have,
Speaker 1: you know, admissible evidence in court to go after all
Speaker 1: the people that um Joe kar named, if he named
Speaker 1: anybody or whatever, he gave up, you know. So it's
Speaker 1: just I don't know, Yeah, I'm coming to trust like
Speaker 1: Obama's security policies like less and less real. That's my opinion. No,
Speaker 1: I get it. It's it's a it's a very fine
Speaker 1: line between like, hey, this guy's a terrorist and get
Speaker 1: that information or people still have their human rights right exactly.
Speaker 1: And it's such a difficult thing to to swallow to
Speaker 1: the concept that some little punk who him and his
Speaker 1: brother blew people up in Boston and took people's lives
Speaker 1: and legs and that they did this, that the concept
Speaker 1: that they have any rights whatsoever is pretty unpalatable. But
Speaker 1: we as a society have decided that, yeah, you do
Speaker 1: have rights. If you're an American system, you have certain
Speaker 1: rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights and and court interpretation of those rights. And
Speaker 1: that's the law of the land. And um, I guess
Speaker 1: to just routinely skirt around those whenever, whenever it's determined
Speaker 1: to be called for by whoever is in charge and power.
Speaker 1: That's that's equally impalatable. Impalatable to me because also, um
Speaker 1: you know, the courts judged a criminal suspect when you
Speaker 1: invoke the public safety exemption. It's not that that person
Speaker 1: doesn't have any rights, it's that the safety of the
Speaker 1: public trumps that person's constitutional rights right then, but just
Speaker 1: for that narrow window of time, and then after that
Speaker 1: it's exhausted. That's right, and this is not the first time.
Speaker 1: It was just three years ago that the FEDS did
Speaker 1: the same thing. They invoked the public safety exemption for
Speaker 1: the Times Square bomber. Yeah, and he sang like a canary,
Speaker 1: which is if they just did it to Joe Carson, Naieve,
Speaker 1: I don't think I would have a problem. But just
Speaker 1: the fact that it popped up three years ago too,
Speaker 1: that's starting an indicative pattern to me. Yeah, terrorism, I
Speaker 1: think is the key. Yeah, key agent there you know
Speaker 1: anything else, I'm done, then we're gonna get so much
Speaker 1: mail for that one. Hey, buddy, you have the right
Speaker 1: to remain fabulous. Thank you. That's my takeaway. Thank you.
Speaker 1: If you want to learn more about being fabulous, you
Speaker 1: can type that word into the search bar how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. You can also type Miranda rights m
Speaker 1: I R A N D A rights Uh. And since
Speaker 1: I said search bar somewhere in there, it's time for
Speaker 1: message ye, and now it's time for listening to mail. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Before listener mail, we have a quick shout out. And
Speaker 1: we don't usually do this because we get inundated with
Speaker 1: requests for shoutouts. Yeah, so every once in a while,
Speaker 1: because at the right time exactly. This is an anniversary
Speaker 1: shout out from Josh Underwood. Uh. He and his wife
Speaker 1: are teachers in h Robertson County, Kentucky, and they've listened
Speaker 1: to our show incorporated in their classrooms and they are
Speaker 1: celebrating their tenure anniversary. And uh, he said, if we
Speaker 1: could say happy anniversary to Amanda, it would I can't
Speaker 1: think of anything that would make her smile more so.
Speaker 1: On June fourteenth, he said, if it's late, you know,
Speaker 1: do't worry about it. So this is probably gonna be late,
Speaker 1: but I hope you guys had a great anniversary on
Speaker 1: June fourteen. Happy tenth Josh and Amanda Underwood. Yeah, happy
Speaker 1: improtrate you guys. Or I don't know if Amanda took
Speaker 1: your name whatever her name might be. Yeah, so the
Speaker 1: real listener mail speaking of taking names. Uh, it's a
Speaker 1: good one and I'm gonna call it Royal tann ebombs.
Speaker 1: Uh theory. Oh I like this already. Yeah, it's one
Speaker 1: of my favorite movies. As it's losing finger you know,
Speaker 1: a boy chopping accent? Right, Hi, guys, My wife Molly
Speaker 1: and I've been listening for about three years. We both
Speaker 1: love it. Um I've always wanted to email you, but
Speaker 1: I didn't have a reason, and I didn't want to
Speaker 1: sound like a twelve year old girl talking to in
Speaker 1: Sync or something. Those guys pretty out of touch. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess that's I wanted to say something interesting. So
Speaker 1: here are two interesting things. One, my name is Josh Bryant.
Speaker 1: Pretty interesting. It's like the two of us together. It's right.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking my name. Uh. Number two he
Speaker 1: actually had three things, but one wasn't so interesting. Number
Speaker 1: two is I watched Wes Anderson's Royal Tannebombs. Was amazing
Speaker 1: at how different and unique all the characters were and
Speaker 1: how well they all worked together as a family. After
Speaker 1: reading other theories about the movie, I think the one
Speaker 1: I love most is that every character represents a different
Speaker 1: stage of grief. So Denial I collect fan theories. Oh
Speaker 1: I love it. That is a great one. Have you
Speaker 1: seen Room two thirty seven? Yet? No of you know
Speaker 1: I'm dying to them. They didn't release it in Atlanta.
Speaker 1: Um alright, So Denial is Margot Tannembaum, her unknown smoking habit,
Speaker 1: numerous marriages, secret crush on Richie, totally demoral anger, Chaz
Speaker 1: tannebaumb need I say more. Pretty much throughout the whole movie,
Speaker 1: he's angry and full of resentment, bargaining Royal Tannembaum himself.
Speaker 1: He lies to get out of bad gambles and gambles
Speaker 1: to cover up bad lies. This is like pretty good.
Speaker 1: And he didn't make this up. He got off the internet.
Speaker 1: But that's still good still. But Joshua Brant, you get
Speaker 1: no credit. It's like that kid who stole that haiku
Speaker 1: from a T shirt and um depression. Richie Tannebaum again
Speaker 1: very obvious. Sees when he tries to see when he
Speaker 1: tries to commit suicide. Great scene. Uh and except Upstince
Speaker 1: is Ethylene Tannenbaum. Her role is more subtle. Her acceptance
Speaker 1: is seen when she accepts Mr. Sherman's marriage proposal. It's
Speaker 1: a little thin there. It's also seen when she finally
Speaker 1: moves on from her own marriage and accepts her new
Speaker 1: life with her new husband. So that's sort of that's
Speaker 1: the most tenuous. But he that's what we think, and
Speaker 1: I think that's pretty good. I love fan theories like you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: five stages of gree I doubt if that's the case. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what makes fan theories so great if like, if
Speaker 1: you just unlocked the director's secret, sure, then it's done.
Speaker 1: It's whine not you figured it out. One of the
Speaker 1: great things about fan theories is if it rivals what
Speaker 1: the director was trying to do or the writer was
Speaker 1: trying to do. Yeah, it was like English class. Remember
Speaker 1: back in English class, it was always and I had
Speaker 1: a problem with it back then, but now I love it.
Speaker 1: I would always be well, just teachers just interpreting this,
Speaker 1: like who knows what the author meant? Oh yeah, but
Speaker 1: that's kind of the point. Now in my old age,
Speaker 1: I realized, Yeah, I remember feeling my brain unfurl. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and start to get like, yeah, there are specific interpretations
Speaker 1: of things that that that kind of fit within a framework,
Speaker 1: but still are it's pretty wide. Yeah, but great, it's nice,
Speaker 1: pretty cool fan theories. I'm writing a blog post on
Speaker 1: him right now. I'm collecting him. Oh yeah, so that's
Speaker 1: from Joshua Bryant. Joshua, I guess is a result of
Speaker 1: some weird stuff you should know in breeding. But yeah,
Speaker 1: he's an experiment, that's right, Yeah, tree dish, let us
Speaker 1: know where you are right now. He escaped. Yeah, uh,
Speaker 1: if you escape from our lab. We want to hear
Speaker 1: about it, especially if you have some cool fan theory. Man,
Speaker 1: send us fan theories like good ones. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: like good ones, not like uh it's stupid ones. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've been on feral Children lately. What just that's been
Speaker 1: my obsession lately, reading about feral children. I might try
Speaker 1: and write a think for a show fan theory feral Children.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do with fan theories? Nothing,
Speaker 1: That's just that's my obsession. Yours has been fan theories. Oh,
Speaker 1: I got you, I got I've just been obsessed with
Speaker 1: feral children. Yeah, because there have been like actual ones
Speaker 1: in the like um, the Emerald Forest, the many cases.
Speaker 1: So okay, if you have a good fan theory and
Speaker 1: or a good feral children's story, we want to hear
Speaker 1: about it. You can tweek to us at s Y
Speaker 1: s K podcast. You can join us on Stuff you
Speaker 1: Should Know, which is prior to that slash, prior to
Speaker 1: that Facebook dot com. Uh. You can send us an
Speaker 1: email the Stuff podcast that Discovery dot com, and you
Speaker 1: can join us at our home on the web, Stuff
Speaker 1: you Should Know dot Com. For more on this and
Speaker 1: thousands of other topics, visit how Stuff Works. Dot com