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 Clark,
Speaker 1: and there's Charles W Chuck Bryant, and um this stuff
Speaker 1: you should Know. Jerry just told us right before she
Speaker 1: pressed her cord, 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 thrown off right now. Well, I think maybe because
Speaker 1: you said Miranda rights were named after the Sex in
Speaker 1: the City character. Is that what you're talking about. It
Speaker 1: 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 really 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 tomfoolery. There you go, Chuck, I
Speaker 1: know that. Uh, you and I have both been arrested
Speaker 1: many times and we've done some time in the stir
Speaker 1: and all that, so we know what Miranda rights are. True.
Speaker 1: But the average person also knows what Miranda rights are
Speaker 1: because they're so ubiquitous on every cop show, every lawyer show,
Speaker 1: every every show. I think they show up on like
Speaker 1: e er and still and it's on, right, I have
Speaker 1: no idea. I'm like season I have no idea. I
Speaker 1: don't think it is and I had a pretty good
Speaker 1: long run, sure, But Miranda rights are just this thing
Speaker 1: that have become totally ingrained in our culture. We can
Speaker 1: all say it. Well, let's say it together. You have
Speaker 1: the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and
Speaker 1: will be used against you in a corps of law.
Speaker 1: But hey, buddy, don't fret. You have the right to
Speaker 1: an attorney, and if you cannot afford one, one will
Speaker 1: be appointed to you. Right and then over time, apparently
Speaker 1: 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, you know, it just goes like
Speaker 1: I'm not even gonna tell you that. Yeah, Castle, he's
Speaker 1: all business. Yeah. Is he a cop though? And I
Speaker 1: think he's a private investigator, although I'm not sure. So
Speaker 1: he wouldn't have to mirandize anybody, but he's Castle, so
Speaker 1: he does. I've never seen it. I love Nathan Fillin though,
Speaker 1: Oh who doesn't. Yeah, he's a nice guy. But this
Speaker 1: this idea that Miranda rights are. You know, they're everywhere
Speaker 1: and everybody knows them and knows what they You know
Speaker 1: that they exist. But the first of all, the case
Speaker 1: behind him, I think is probably unknown. And then secondly,
Speaker 1: like what they're designed to do, really, the real nuts
Speaker 1: and bolts of it, I hadn't. It hadn't really occurred
Speaker 1: to me, even though it's pretty self ever once you
Speaker 1: think about it. Yeah, and it seems really straightforward, but
Speaker 1: it can't give a little tricky uh, which will discuss
Speaker 1: how that happens. Well. So the idea of the Miranda
Speaker 1: rights is fairly recent. Um goes back to nineteen sixty six,
Speaker 1: 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 via 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 the UM there were confessions after interrogations, UM,
Speaker 1: and those confessions were used against these various people. Right.
Speaker 1: But Miranda though the lawyers of these UM, well not
Speaker 1: just us, I mean everybody does. It's called it's the
Speaker 1: Miranda case, the Miranda laws, the Miranda rights, your Miranda
Speaker 1: I is, you know, UM. But the the the whole
Speaker 1: point behind these in all of the cases, the that
Speaker 1: the complainants had was that they're the people who committed
Speaker 1: these crimes and made these confessions and we're later convicted
Speaker 1: for him. We're not aware that they didn't have to
Speaker 1: talk to the police. And this is actually the Miranda
Speaker 1: case goes back to nineteen six But the American right
Speaker 1: guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution to
Speaker 1: refrain from self incrimination. That goes back to you said,
Speaker 1: the Fifth Amendment basically says that you don't have to
Speaker 1: tell on yourself. The cops can't make you talk, is
Speaker 1: what that. Yeah, but until nineteen sixty six they I
Speaker 1: guess you just needed to be you know, up on
Speaker 1: your constitutional knowledge. And then in nineteen sixty six they
Speaker 1: eventually will get to the case. They said, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe we should start telling people this when we arrest them. Um.
Speaker 1: So let's go back in time to uh in Phoenix, Arizona, UM,
Speaker 1: the cops picked up Ernesto Miranda for questioning and a kidnapping.
Speaker 1: In rate case, his car was spotted nearer the scene
Speaker 1: of the crime. He was called in. When he got there,
Speaker 1: he was like, I didn't do this. Man like he
Speaker 1: was completely cooperative. He's like, I didn't do any of this.
Speaker 1: Two hours later, an interrogation they had he was not
Speaker 1: identified in a lineup, but the cops said, the girl
Speaker 1: identifies you in the lineup, and he went, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I guess I think his direct quote was well, I
Speaker 1: guess I ought to tell you about it then, And
Speaker 1: so the cops lied to him. And this is a
Speaker 1: clear case of you know, like not doing things the
Speaker 1: right way. Well, this no, the Supreme Court is upheld
Speaker 1: the use of deception by police in interrogation. They can
Speaker 1: lie their their tails off to you, but not if
Speaker 1: you're not Miranda. I. That was the point is he
Speaker 1: didn't know that he could just be quiet and not
Speaker 1: say anything, so he just volunteered the information, signed a
Speaker 1: written confession. And that's the whole point. And that's what
Speaker 1: the justices in the Supreme Court who heard the Miranda
Speaker 1: case and all the other cases that combined to make
Speaker 1: it um we're getting at was that you, when you
Speaker 1: are being interrogated by the place you're in their custody,
Speaker 1: they are allowed to use deception. They are allowed to
Speaker 1: um use all sorts of tactics to core coerce. You
Speaker 1: two talk, But if you're not aware that you don't
Speaker 1: have to talk, then what you're saying amounts to an
Speaker 1: involuntary confession and hence shouldn't be able to be used
Speaker 1: against you because you have a constitutional right against self incrimination.
Speaker 1: If you're in for that, you have that right. Then
Speaker 1: you are making the decision to go ahead and confess
Speaker 1: against yourself, and you're waiving that right. Yes, and that
Speaker 1: can be used in court exactly, so they give you
Speaker 1: the option essentially. So this is what the whole case
Speaker 1: was about. UM. In nineteen sixty six, like we said,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court heard this case and ruled he was
Speaker 1: convicted we should say, based on that confession and sentenced
Speaker 1: to thirty years I believe, and that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: case was part of an appeal from that three years
Speaker 1: later they heard this case. Yeah. And apparently, like the
Speaker 1: the other three people probably represent even more than just
Speaker 1: those four cases total. Usually when the Supreme Court here's something,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of it going on in the courts. 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 will now call his Miranda rights. Yeah. And they
Speaker 1: specifically said, UM, prosecution may not use statements stemming from
Speaker 1: custodial and terror ation of the defendant unless it demonstrates
Speaker 1: the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege
Speaker 1: against self incrimination. But the key there is custodial interrogation
Speaker 1: and established a couple of things. Is one, you can't
Speaker 1: self incriminate from the moment you're in custody, um, so
Speaker 1: like it's not like you're on trial or something, and
Speaker 1: that any confession is uh involuntary basically. And again the
Speaker 1: reason that they're differentiating between in custody and not in
Speaker 1: custody is because once you're in custody, the cops can
Speaker 1: do things like lie to you or something like that.
Speaker 1: That's right, um. And in custody is the three key
Speaker 1: words taken into custody or is where all the gray
Speaker 1: area has been since then and still is today. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because they were pretty clear in their ruling, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this person has to be read their rights and how
Speaker 1: let's even print some cards for police officers to carry
Speaker 1: around with them so they can read off of card
Speaker 1: if they have to. Yeah, and we should point out
Speaker 1: that Miranda, actually they retried him without his confession and
Speaker 1: his girlfriend, um said he confessed to me, so that
Speaker 1: was used in court. So he was found guilty again
Speaker 1: since the twenty to thirty years again, paroled after five
Speaker 1: years and then sold those little Miranda cards with his
Speaker 1: autograph on him for a while for like a buck fifty.
Speaker 1: And then he was stabbed to death in a bar
Speaker 1: fight in Yes, and the suspect who stabbed him was
Speaker 1: read his Miranda rights and so he never talked and
Speaker 1: he walked. Really yeah, oh my god. The irony. It's
Speaker 1: definitely irony and like the truest form of the word.
Speaker 1: That's right, man. So custodial interrogation is is one of
Speaker 1: the keys here. Um, in custody is where it gets
Speaker 1: a little hinky. Like if you're in the back of
Speaker 1: a police car and you get your handcuffs on, then
Speaker 1: you're in custody. That's pretty straightforward. Or even if you
Speaker 1: don't have handcuffs on, if you're if the cops lock
Speaker 1: you in the car and you're you're are it's understood
Speaker 1: by you that you're not allowed to get out. You're
Speaker 1: in police custody. Right. The official definition of custody and
Speaker 1: the Mirand decision is quote unquote denial of complete freedom
Speaker 1: of action. Right, 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: mirroade sunglasses, that they have some sort of um, they
Speaker 1: project a sort of uh, just talking to a cop,
Speaker 1: a person might feel detained. Yeah, it's an implied UM. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it's like an implied detention. Like the cop
Speaker 1: came to my front door and said he had some
Speaker 1: questions for me regarding a crime. I don't think I
Speaker 1: would feel even though it's within my right, I don't
Speaker 1: think I would feel like I was able to say, no, actually,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go to the grocery store right now, right exactly,
Speaker 1: and just walk past him and get in my car,
Speaker 1: or even I'm gonna have to ask you guys to leave,
Speaker 1: which again you said it is your right to do.
Speaker 1: They haven't placed you into custody, but you you don't
Speaker 1: have to be Mirandi's in this situation because you can
Speaker 1: tell the cops to leave if you are in an
Speaker 1: interrogation room and you tell the cops to leave, they're
Speaker 1: not gonna listen to you. If they're on your front doorstep,
Speaker 1: then you tell them to leave. They are supposed to
Speaker 1: listen to you, and because of that, you're not being
Speaker 1: you You have freedom of movement. You can go back
Speaker 1: in your house, you can go to the grocery store.
Speaker 1: You can tell the cops to leave. So even though
Speaker 1: the perception might be that you are being detained by
Speaker 1: the cops just by their very presence, and you don't
Speaker 1: feel like you can tell them to leave, the law
Speaker 1: isn't this. This law isn't designed to let you be slippery, right,
Speaker 1: Like a traffic stop, for instance, is a is a
Speaker 1: kind of a not weird. But if you get stopped
Speaker 1: by a cop and you'd say, um, you know, I've
Speaker 1: got 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 means you can just drive off,
Speaker 1: because then if you can't, 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 court of that means you're fleeing.
Speaker 1: That means you're evading, evading what arrest the 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 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 a genuinely like, I'm genuinely curious.
Speaker 1: If you can't drive off, then how is it a
Speaker 1: non constidial situation? That's my question. That's a good question, um.
Speaker 1: But that shows the slippery slope in the gray area,
Speaker 1: you know, right, And like you said, I mean if
Speaker 1: you say, hey, I've got five pounds of weed in
Speaker 1: my trunk and the cop never mirandized you, and then
Speaker 1: after they says, well, you're under arrest, and then he
Speaker 1: mirandizes you and you shut up. From that point on,
Speaker 1: they can still use that initial exact confession because it
Speaker 1: was non custodial. Uh. And here's the other thing. A
Speaker 1: lot of people, well not a lot of people, some
Speaker 1: folks may be confused by if you're not read your
Speaker 1: miranda rights, then you just you get released or whatever.
Speaker 1: Not true at all. That just means that they can't
Speaker 1: use what you have said in court, and any ancillary uh,
Speaker 1: incriminating evidence that came from that confession can't be used either, right,
Speaker 1: Like if they arrest you and you say they tell
Speaker 1: you 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 Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: we are Criminal Minds right here. I'm sure there's workarounds
Speaker 1: for all this. We like Mandy Patinken and like the
Speaker 1: rest of the cast right here at this table. No,
Speaker 1: it Isn'tny in Criminal Minds. I don't know. He's in Homeland.
Speaker 1: I watch that. He's also in The Prince's Pride. He's
Speaker 1: in Nego Montoya Monday at Patinken. He was also the
Speaker 1: alien cop in Alien Nation. A lot of people don't
Speaker 1: know that, but 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. Ye, Yeah, it was
Speaker 1: nothing like I had, like a good plot and it
Speaker 1: was like to live in Die in l a with
Speaker 1: aliens right or enemy mine on Earth? Yeah, I never
Speaker 1: saw that one. It was. It was just kind of
Speaker 1: the same deal. It's like it's Lucas A Jr. In
Speaker 1: an alien suit and Dennis Quaid, right, Uh, Randy Quid,
Speaker 1: Dennis Quaid. It definitely wasn't Randy. It was Denis Quid.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure, all right. So Miranda Rights the requisite
Speaker 1: meandering tangent. Uh. So there's an important thing we haven't
Speaker 1: covered yet, um, in regards to Miranda Rights, And it
Speaker 1: was recently I got a lot of press with the
Speaker 1: bombings in Boston, and that is the public safety exception. Um.
Speaker 1: In the case of the the Boston bombing. What was
Speaker 1: his name, Uh, Joe Car Sarnia. Okay, so Joe Car.
Speaker 1: Joe Car did Joe Car. There's a lot of ways
Speaker 1: to say it that are wrong. And then there's one
Speaker 1: right one which I may have had in there. So
Speaker 1: 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 called 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 without reading him his rights. He's asking
Speaker 1: 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 the bombing. He
Speaker 1: told them about um, possible other bombs. I think that's
Speaker 1: how they found out that the apartment was possibly rigged
Speaker 1: with explosives, or at very least there were explosives in
Speaker 1: his apartment, his brother's apartment. UM. And they found all
Speaker 1: 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 frisked him 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 went, 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: we're like, sure, whatever, And apparently a judge ordered the
Speaker 1: FEDS to mirandize the guy after like two days of
Speaker 1: this quiet questioning. I bet that was a pretty satisfying
Speaker 1: reading 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 we'll this question
Speaker 1: you about everything we want for two days until the
Speaker 1: judge ordered us to mirandi is that means that some
Speaker 1: attorneys are gonna 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 verdict,
Speaker 1: and he he was like, you know what, in the
Speaker 1: case with the Boston bomber, you they shouldn't even done
Speaker 1: that anyway, because it was so much evidence. They didn't
Speaker 1: even need these confessions, and it wasn't the true spirit
Speaker 1: of trying to secure public safety to find if there
Speaker 1: was other explosives. But from that point on they were
Speaker 1: like it was completely unnecessary because the guy was convicted
Speaker 1: just from you know, the evidence was so strong that
Speaker 1: they didn't even need that confession exactly. So like after
Speaker 1: they found out about the bombs or whatever, whether their
Speaker 1: word weren't bombs, then it seems to me like the
Speaker 1: public safety exemption would have been exhausted and they would
Speaker 1: 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. 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 option, it's not that that person
Speaker 1: doesn't have any rights, it's that the safety of the
Speaker 1: public trump set 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 Naiev,
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 indicate a pattern to me. Yeah, terrorism,
Speaker 1: I 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 bart 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 bars somewhere in there, it's time for message,
Speaker 1: and now it's time for listening to mail. Yeah. Before
Speaker 1: listener mail, we have a quick shout out. And we
Speaker 1: don't usually do this because we get inundated with requests
Speaker 1: for shoutouts. Yeah, so every once in a a while they
Speaker 1: at the right time exactly. This is an anniversary shout
Speaker 1: out from Josh Underwood. Uh. He and his wife are
Speaker 1: teachers in uh Robertson County, Kentucky, and they've listen to
Speaker 1: our show incorporated in their classrooms and they are celebrating
Speaker 1: their tenure anniversary. And uh, he said, if we could
Speaker 1: say happy anniversary to Amanda, it would can't think of
Speaker 1: anything that would make her smile more so on June fourteenth,
Speaker 1: and he said, if it's late, and you know, don't
Speaker 1: 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: anniversary you guys. Or I don't know if I'm and
Speaker 1: it took your name whatever her name might be. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so the real listener male speaking of taking names. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a good one and I'm gonna call it Royal
Speaker 1: Tannon Bombs. Uh theory. Oh I like this already. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's one of my favorite movies, Losing a finger, you know,
Speaker 1: boy chopping actor. Hi, guys, my wife Molly and I've
Speaker 1: been listening for about three years. We both love it. Um.
Speaker 1: I've always wanted to email you, but I didn't have
Speaker 1: a reason, and I didn't want to sound like a
Speaker 1: twelve year old girl talking to in sync or something.
Speaker 1: Those guys pretty out of touch. Yeah, I guess it's
Speaker 1: nineteen four. I wanted to say something interesting. So here
Speaker 1: are two interesting things. One, my name is Josh Bryant.
Speaker 1: Pretty interesting. It's like the two of us together, 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. Uh.
Speaker 1: Number two is I watched Wes Anderson Toroyal Tannonbombs was amazing,
Speaker 1: how different and unique all the characters were and how
Speaker 1: well they all worked together as a family. After reading
Speaker 1: other theories about the movie, I think the one I
Speaker 1: love most is that every character represents a different stage
Speaker 1: of grief. So Denial I collect fan theories. Oh I
Speaker 1: love it. That is a great one. Have you seen
Speaker 1: Room two thirty seven? Yet no of you know I'm
Speaker 1: dying to them. They didn't release it in Atlanta. Um alright.
Speaker 1: So Denial is Margot Tannembaum, her unknown smoking habit, numerous marriages,
Speaker 1: secret crush on Richie, totally denial, anger, Chaz Tannebaum, need
Speaker 1: I say more? Pretty much throughout the whole movie, he's
Speaker 1: angry and full of resentment, bargaining royal Tannebaum himself. He
Speaker 1: lies to get out of bad gambles and gambles to
Speaker 1: cover up bad lies. This is like pretty good and
Speaker 1: he didn't make this up. He got off then after
Speaker 1: that's still good. But Joshua Bryant, you getting no credit.
Speaker 1: It's like that kid who stole that high ku from
Speaker 1: a T shirt and um depression. Richie Tannebomb again very obvious,
Speaker 1: sees when he tries to see when he tries to
Speaker 1: commit suicide. Great scene, uh An acceptance is ethylene Tannenbaum.
Speaker 1: Her is more subtle. Her acceptance is seen when she
Speaker 1: accepts Mr. Sherman's marriage proposal. It's a little thing there.
Speaker 1: It's also seen when she finally moves on from her
Speaker 1: own marriage and accepts her new life with her new husband.
Speaker 1: So that's sort of that's the most tenuous. But that's
Speaker 1: what we think, and I think that's pretty good. I
Speaker 1: love fan theories, like you, Yeah, five stages of greed.
Speaker 1: I doubt if that's the case. Well, that's what makes
Speaker 1: fan theories so great. If like, if you just unlocked
Speaker 1: the director's secret, sure, then it's done. It's fine. Not
Speaker 1: you figured it out. One of the great things about
Speaker 1: fan theories is that it rivals what the director was
Speaker 1: trying to do or the writer was trying to do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was like English class. Remember back in English class,
Speaker 1: it was always and I had a problem with it
Speaker 1: back then, but now I love it. I would always
Speaker 1: be like, well, just teachers just interpreting this, like who
Speaker 1: knows what the author meant? Oh yeah, but that's kind
Speaker 1: of the point. Now in my old age, I realized, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I remember feeling my brain unfurl and start to get like, yeah,
Speaker 1: there are ccific interpretations of things and that that that
Speaker 1: kind of fit within a framework, but still are it's
Speaker 1: pretty wide. Yeah, but great, it's nice, pretty cool fan theories.
Speaker 1: I'm writing a blog post on him right now. I'm
Speaker 1: collecting him. Oh yeah, so that's from Joshua Bryant. Joshua,
Speaker 1: I guess is a result of some weird stuff you
Speaker 1: should know in breeding. But yeah, he's an experiment, that's right. Yeah, Dish,
Speaker 1: let us know where you are right now. He escape 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. I mean like
Speaker 1: good ones, not like uh it's stupid ones. Yeah. I've
Speaker 1: been on feral children lately. What just that's been my
Speaker 1: obsession lately, reading about feral children. I might trying to
Speaker 1: write a think virtue fan theory. Feral children. What does
Speaker 1: that have to do with fan theories? Nothing, That's just
Speaker 1: that's my obsession. Yours has been fan theories. Oh, I
Speaker 1: got you, I got I've just been obsessed with feral children. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because there have been like actual ones in there, yeah,
Speaker 1: like um, the Emerald Forest, the many cases. So Okay.
Speaker 1: If you have a good fan theory and or a
Speaker 1: good barrel children's story, we want to hear about it.
Speaker 1: You can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast.
Speaker 1: You can join us on Stuff you Should Know, which
Speaker 1: is prior to that slash, prior to that Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com uh, you can send us an email the Stuff podcast,
Speaker 1: that Discovery dot com, and you can join us at
Speaker 1: our home on the web Stuff you Should Know dot
Speaker 1: com for more on this and thousands of other topics.
Speaker 1: Does it House stuff works dot com. Jack thards has
Speaker 1: quickly become the online shopping destination for guys. Here's why
Speaker 1: everything on the site is up off as a listener
Speaker 1: of Stuff you Should Know, you can skip the membership
Speaker 1: waitlist and get instant access at jack threads dot com,
Speaker 1: slash k and o W stuff That's Jack threads dot com,
Speaker 1: slash no Stuff