Phil Shuman Fills In For The John Kobylt Show Hour 2 (01/03) - Charges Filed

Published Jan 4, 2025, 12:21 AM

Phil Shuman fills in for John Kobylt. Michael Monks comes on the show to talk about a man being charged in a shooting at a Target. More on the Menendez Brothers. Brian Claypool comes on the show to talk about who the families of the victims of the New Orleans terrorist attack sue for damages. Are more people being radicalized easier these days?

Caf I Am six forty.

You're listening to the John Cobel podcast on the iHeartRadio app.

In the studio with me is Michael Monks from KFI News talking about charges file against a suspected target shooter. We're talking about the target and seventh and figure zero of part of a shopping center in downtown Los Angeles, and Michael and I were talking. This is the same store I remember covering the story back in November of twenty twenty two, where a homeless man just walked in, grabbed a knife off the shelf and stabbed a nine year old boy and a twenty five year old woman. So it's a little bit of the wild West still in downtown Los Angeles, despite efforts to clean things up.

Yeah, no question about it. I mean, this is a busy mall. This is actually a pretty nice mall. I live downtown. I can walk to this target. You know, there are nice stores, there's a Nordstone wrack. You know, you can buy candles, you can have a nice food court. But occasionally you have to deal with this nonsense. And what we have that's different today that wasn't the case in twenty twenty two, is that there's a different district attorney. I raise that issue because some points were emphasized during the press conference about the charges now being faced by Jabrill Matoyer, who's the suspect in this shooting. So we shot two security guards back on December thirtieth, exactly, and Nathan Hawkman, the new DA, says that he is making sure that there is a gun enhancement on these charges that include attempted murder attempted robbery because he says that that could extend a potential sentence to life, and with that he hopes it becomes a deterrent for folks like the Jabrill is accused of being from ever doing these things in the first place. He also says that this is not something that would have happened before.

With Gascon because Gascon was against enhancements, which lengthened sentence is saying it may make people who want revenge feel good, but doesn't really make the community any safer.

That's exactly right. Nathan Hakman ran against George Gascon, not just as a candidate, but also with all of the messaging that came out of Gascon's office. So Nathan Hawkman has appeared before news media times since taking office very recently. Yeah, and constantly emphasizes basically as you noted before we went back on the air that you didn't say there's a new sheriff.

In town, that they get the sound go ahead, do we have it.

So in the past four years, if someone engaged an attempted murder using a firearm, that as part of it, the gun enhancement that would have been implied would have been, if it would have been implied at all, would have been a lower gun enhancement. We are using a gun enhancement that basically treats this crime as a potential life sentence. And again we're doing that on purpose because we want to send a very strong message anyway, who thinks they can use a gun in connection with a violent crime as this has turned out to be, that they will deal with a potential maximum consequence if we in turn proved that case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, if they show request and then make the argument to a judge. So again we are going the use of that gun enhancement we are hoping will deter further criminals for using guns in the future.

Well, he said it about as clear as it.

You're being you know, and they love these pronouncements like this type of violence will not be tolerated, and so on and so forth. It's unacceptable, will not be tolerated in Los Angeles County, brazen thievery because we've all done so many stories on people's shoplifting and essentially just strolling out of the store, and the policy is to let them go.

And to that point, this is really why a lot of corporations have those policies, right, Like, Okay, it looks ridiculous to us on the street to see surveillance video of somebody walking in, taking a bunch of stuff and walking back out with no interruption or all whatsoever. But this is the argument from the corporate executives is you never know what could happen, So in terms of keeping their employees, the guards safe, you want to keep them safe. So in this instance, you did have a security guard from the loss prevention department at Target and also a security guard there at fig at seventh come out and they both ended up wounded from this. This is a guy who walked in and was trying to walk out with two suitcases full of stuff that he hadn't paid for. Is that worth losing your life over I don't know, but the message now is this type of stuff is not going to be tolerated in La County anymore with the new DA and also California state wide with Prop thirty six.

And it also was interesting and not unexpected that the LAPD chief was by Hawkman's side sending the message that we're partners in this.

I mean, it could have been the sheriffs as well.

It just seems like there is a unified effort to I guess you'd say, get tougher.

There's certainly a concern from the community that what had been happening in La and across other California cities, that the lifestyle was just unacceptable. You know, there's just not enough deterrence from people to feel like they would face serious consequences if they did what they do. That's why you're seeing the emphasis on deterrence and the emphasis on enhanced charges and potentially lengthy prisons at So.

I don't know any criminals like personally that I could ask this question to, But.

We were talking a little bit before we came back on the.

Air about this is do they go through the thought process of, well, there's a new juststrict attorney in Los Angeles. If I get caught, I may be going away for a much longer time. Or if I'm in Orange County. You know that Todd Spitzer, he doesn't fool around. I mean, do the bad guys like sort of evaluate the risk or do they just go for it. I mentioned this to you.

I don't know what was going through Jabril Matoyer's mind when he went in and allegedly tried to walk out with these things and then allegedly fired in these guards. But there was that viral video from a couple of weeks ago out of Seal Beach where you saw on video three women walking through coles walking through an all to beauty and taking whatever they wanted and then walking out. But they got arrested, and then there's a clip of them Orange County, exactly an Orange county, So this is more relevant to Prop thirty six. You hear them talking in the back that this is a felony now, and also they say, hey, this is Orange County.

Don't play in Orange County.

So some of this messaging is clearly if that video is any any indication starting to resonate with folks who might have bad behavior on their mind.

Which for us who are law abiding citizens just trying to live our lives and stay.

Safe, that's great. It is it's you know, I mean.

That's why sorry, that's why Hawkman was overwhelmingly elected over Gascone.

Because statistics aren't as relevant to people as the lifestyle experience. You know, you could possibly point to stats, and of course there's arguments over which stats people are using, who's padding what or saying what. But you can say no loan well, robberies are down, a retail theft is down. But if you're going into places and it feels unsafe, that matters to you. I went to Burlington last night, downtown. Okay, no crime took place in front of me, but you you basically are walking into a stadium. It feels like the way that you're padded down almost. There's a security guard at the door there on Bride on Broadway, okay, to get into just the Burlington store. So you go through one guard and then there's another guard on the inside who the gate locked or has you know, a sort of a blockade that you can't go through until they say you can go through. That's how challenging it is. Just to shop downtown because of the perception that bad things are going to happen.

Well, people that live downtown should get some type of metal, I think, or some type of recognition because you're you're making a statement.

I mean, downtown is great. It's gorgeous.

The buildings are spectacular, the older buildings, the newer buildings.

I mean, you're right there.

All the action is, whether it's shopping, whether it's restaurants, whether it's crypto and you know, the soccer.

There's so much to do there.

Yet you feel like you're like in a little bit of you know, zombie land, especially after dark.

Zombie land is exactly the way to describe it. If you watch The Walking Dead, you know the noises that the walkers make, and those are the noises that I hear outside my window all the time. And I had this conversation with my spouse just last night as we were leaving Burlington about how much I love downtown. If you're looking up, you see the beautiful buildings, You see a plane fly and there's just a beautiful shot of an image of a plane flying in the air. You see the silhouttes of the trees and all that. You hear the music, you can smell the food, But once you're looking down where you're walking on the sidewalks, you see the garbage, you see the trash, you see the bodies of people who are sleeping are odeed.

And this is two.

Years after Mayor Bass took office with homelessness as priority number one.

That's exactly right.

And the argument that we don't hear enough is a lot of these folks who are homeless, like the ones we encounter downtown every day, So probably not folks who are ever going to return to any type of productive position in society. So it's not about the cost of housing for them. It's a lot more intentional health, drug alcohol. But what about for the rest of us who are living down there, what is the incentive or what is the encouragement to stay when that is the environmental You.

Know, I have said this so many times. If I was an elected official, is that Hernandez's district downtown.

Or the new woman that.

If it's baths, I mean, I would rent one of those mobile office trailers and I would park it in the middle of the encampment, and I would put out a sign, you know, homelessness services, and I wouldn't move that trailer till every person in that area was taken care of. And I know that's over simplistic, and you know, sounds easy for me to say, but you know, we talk about this urgency, and we talk about this being priority, the top priority. Yet you know when you go home this evening, you're gonna step around a dozen homeless people who are in desperate need of help and it just goes on indefinitely.

You're not exaggerating, and yes, they are in need of help. The question is do they want it in their state of mind currently? Do they want help that could rehabilitate them, or do they just want to get higher or do they just want to go hang out with their buds on the street and their tents.

Which then brings up the question, of course, of how you force people into treatment that don't want it.

And those who are advocates.

Of homelessness rights, I guess you would say, or individual rights like the council members you just love it. Yeah, like the liberal members of the Los Angeles City Council say, hey, you know, we can't force them into treatment unless they're you know, an immediate danger to themselves.

That fifty one to fifty. We've talked about.

Boy, I don't think we're going to resolve this issue like in the next couple of minutes. But it just I've said it here over and over again. I think the problem ultimately be maybe too big to solve. I have a press release from loss of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority touting all the progress they've made, which is accurate in terms of numbers.

But you know, you live like crime. It's like the crime stats. You can point to the numbers all you want, but what is the experience that people are having. I know for a fact, just by looking out my window where I live in the Fashion District, there are more tens outside the back of my building than there were a few months ago.

And if you ever want to be like shocked out of your mind, go to skid Row.

I'm too black, I mean from it.

It's it's a tragedy that that neighborhood continues to exist, apparently indefinitely.

But it's so BEAUTIFU when you're looking up.

All right, that's Michael Monk's motto, Downtown Los Angeles, look up. Thank you, Michael. Always good to talk to you. I'm Phil Schuman, back after a break.

You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI AM six forty.

Phil Schuman from Fox eleven News sitting in for John coe Belt. Really enjoy the opportunity to do this. Always a big listener in KFI, the old AMFM clock radio with the airpiece by my bed, or in the app the iHeartRadio app, or in the car on that iHeartRadio app.

I know you have an opinion about this question.

Should Lyle and Eric Menendez be released after thirty plus years? You click on the microphone icon and you can record a message and then we'll play them on the air. I mentioned this because as we speak, relatives of the parents of Eric and Lyle Menandez Menandez, about two dozen of them, are meeting with new District Attorney Nathan Hakman to try to push for him to support his predecessor, George Gascon's efforts to resentence Eric and Lyle and which would practically speaking result in their immediate release.

The quote from the.

Members of Jose and Kitty Menendez family are is this, we are all united in support for a re sentencing process that reflects Eric and Lyle's abuse, trauma, and demonstrated rehabilitation over the last thirty five years. Now, if you're listening to us here on KFI, we certainly don't need to recap the case in detail, but you remember that back in nineteen eighty nine, they shotgunned their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, to death.

Their first trial was ended in a hung jury. That was in.

Nineteen ninety three, and then in nineteen ninety six the second trial, both Eric and Lyle, who were twenty one and eighteen, respectively when the murders happened, were convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Remember, during the first trial, they argued that they killed their parents after years of sexual and emotional abuse from the father, which they claimed the mother ignored. They also claim they somehow feared for their lives when they committed the murders. And this past fall, even though he says it was unrelated, after this really dramatic and graphic Netflix series on the Menendez brothers as well as an unrelated documentary, former DA George Gascone supported resentence resentencing the brothers, which would make them immediately.

Eligible for parole.

But after that, you know what happened to Gascone, he was voted out of office, and new DA Nathan Hockman said he wanted to review the evidence before making any decisions on supporting the resentencing. So this afternoon I'm reading that at four point thirty we will be I will be off the air here, but Tim Conway June will be on that Hawkman is going to have yet another press conference to give an update on the meetings with the family members. No doubt we'll hear from the family members well as well. And is it shocking to you, I mean, as it is to me that it's the family members of Kitty, and in particular Kitty, the mom and Jose that are pushing for the brothers to be released. I mean, logically or emotionally, you might think that the relatives of the ones who were shotgun to death would be pushing for Lyle and Eric to stay behind bars and serve their sentence of life without parole, even if, and again you could make arguments on both sides of this, even if there had been abuse physical and psychological, and in particular when it comes to murdering Kitty, who at worst is accused of turning a blind eye, towards the abuse or not do anything, doing anything to stop it, which of course is reprehensible. But does that deserve do you deserve to be murdered as a result of that? And can they be considered separately? That might be a question that Hawkman could be asked. I mean, could one be released and the other not? I doubt it, but he did something. He did say something really strange earlier this month. He said, we've always thought of Eric and Lyle Menendez as a package deal, the Menendez brothers, when they could be handled separately. The quote from Hawkman at the time was that's how it should have been done. I don't necessarily know why he's saying that, since they were both tried together, both the first trial and the second trial. So it's just a very emotional, controversial, sensational subject to discuss. If I had my vote, I say their original sentence stands.

I mean, were they abused? I don't know the answer to that question.

If you watched the documentary, if you watch the Netflix series, it certainly supported and showed the abuse, not technically showing it, but implied it.

And it was just gut wrenching.

I mean, this one of the most powerful scenes of all was Remember it was Eric recounting the abuse by his dad in the interview room at La County Men's Central Jail, in which from a cinematic point of view, was remarkable and that the camera never moved for like a half an hour. It was like a two shot from behind the head of the defense attorney focused on Eric as he and Lyle, and it was Eric or Lyle, you have to forgive me, maybe it was Lyle as he recounted this incredibly traumatic story of years of abuse, and Gascone talked about, well, now we understand that males can be abused as well as females. Well, we understood this in the nineteen eighty nine it's not like we're talking about, you know, nineteen fifty. So this is one of the most scrutinized decisions that new District Attorney Nathan Hawkman will have to make. Will he support the efforts to re sentence the Menendez brothers and result essentially in their immediate release ultimately? From the lawyers that we've talked to about this, from all the research we've done, it's not really up to the district attorney, of course, it's up to a judge. There was a hearing earlier or earlier in December that was continued till later in January, and that's when we're going to learn a lot more. But again today it's significant because family members and like two dozen family members of Kitty and Jose the victims here, are going to meet with d. A. Hawkman in what they say is quote an open and fair discussion, they hope, and they're saying, despite the abuse they endured as children, the unfairness of their current sentence, I reckon Lyle Menendez have spent the last three decades taking responsibility for their actions and contributing positively to their community through leadership and rehabilitation.

And remember when we were with you earlier in the week.

We talked about the potential of this not going their way because one of the key advisors to Nathan Hawkman, who's going to head his Bureau of Victims Rights, as Kathleen Katie, who's a former deputy district attorney who for a time represented another relative of Kitty Menendez. I believe one of her brothers who one hundred percent disagrees with the rest of his family and says that the Menendez boys should stay behind bars, should serve out their sentence of life without parole. That was the opinion of one relative of Kitty Menendez, who was represented by Kathleen Katie, who's now a key advisor to Nathan Hawkman, which not to make things a little bit more complicated, but then that led them to appeal to California Attorney General Rob Bonta to take over this case because of this perceived or alleged conflict now between Hawkman Kathleen Katie, and the questions their ability to render an unbiased opinion about the chances or the wisdom of letting the Menendez brothers out. So it's a lot to keep track of, and that's that's our job here at KFI, right, we kind of sort of lead you through the ins and outs of these bizarre twists and turns of a case like the Menendez brothers that impacted so many of us here in southern California and continues to be this source of I guess you'd call it sort of voyeuristic entertainment. All right, I'm Phil Schimman. We're going to take a break.

You're listening to John Cobels on demand from KFI.

A six forty Back to reality when you look at the headlines today, going back to New Orleans on New Year's morning, barricades were supposed to keep Bourbon Street Revelus safe. Here's why they weren't operational. Worst case scenario when needed, most New Orleans ballards because of those steel posts were missing in action headline on CNN new warnings about potential copycats. Knew of the possibility of car ramming attacks. So my question that I was talking about earlier was can the victims' families sue the city of New Orleans or another entity over this and here to sort of sort this out. I appreciate you being with us on short notice. Brian Claypool, Pasadena slash Los Angeles based attorney Brian always good to talk with you.

Hey's so great to see you again, and Happy New Year.

Happy New Year too, do I mean?

I know it might sound cold, it's relatively soon after the tragedy, but with all these allegations of negligence on the part of officials in terms of maintaining an adequate security perimeter and taking adequate precautions, can say the families of the victims sue?

And who would they sue?

Good question. There's good news and some potential bad news for families of those who perished and those who were injured. The good news is yes they can sue. And remember I was a victim of the Las Vegas shooting.

I remember that, Yes.

Yeah, yeah, I saw people shot and killed. And before I even talk about the legal analysis, want to send my heartfelt you know, love and support to all those impacted, because this trauma felt sears your soul forever, it never goes away. So but back to the legal part. You know, in Vegas, we sued the you know, we sued the Mandalay Bay MGM because it's their duty, much like it's the City of New Orleans duty to safeguard in the area right where people are are congregating. So here, the city New Orleans clearly had at its fingertips these cement I don't know what to call them, these cement barriers that could have blocked you know, this guy's truck from driving through there, and and and and a quick analysis is the city would have to owe a duty. It's a duty negligence and then causation. Clearly they owe a duty right because there have been prior incidents of car ramming into people. Uh, something happened I think in Germany a couple of weeks ago with that. So there's clearly a duty ode and where they were they negligent. My argument would be absolutely, they had these these cement barriers and they were they were being I guess, uh, rehabilitated for the Super Bowls I've done. That doesn't help the city pill because that actually shows that it's on their radar screen. Right, we knew we had to have these out there. We didn't have them there. We didn't spend enough money to have more out there, and that's going to be the argument of these families. And then the last element, though, is causation. That gets a little dice, he felt, because you clearly it's the fault of the city. The city would argue in a lawsuit, well, it's also the fault of the perpetrator. And in almost every jurisdiction you get what's called an apportionment of fault. What's that mean. Well, in the verdict form, a jury would say, who's your fault? The city one hundred fifty is the killer fifty percent responsible? A jury would find the killer, you know, responsible for somewhat of a percentage, which would reduce the award. But here's the bad news I think for the for the victims pill real quick. In Louisiana, there's a cap on damages for personal injury against government municipalities that you can believe that I found out the hard way a few years ago. I had a case against Baton Rouge, the city of Baton Ruse I see the police department for police officer allegedly raping an LSU college student after he pulled her over for suspective DUI and I found out in the middle of that case, I was taking the cops deposition found out that there was a cap of five hundred thousand dollars on recovering money for victims of personal injury against cities and government entities. So that's kind of the bad news for the family.

We're talking live with Brian Claypool, attorney, and Brian, you were the survivor of that October twenty seventeen mass shooting in Las Vegas when that mad man opened fire on the Route ninety one Harvest music festival from the Mandalay Bay Hotel. And so you mentioned there were lawsuits after that, I'm sure, And so how did that work out? And is that analogous to say the New Orleans situation?

Yeah, great question, Phil, Absolutely, So the lawyers who are going to be representing these family members should use the template that we used and really felt what to simplify these cases in Vegas are hardest hurdle, which is going to be the hurdle for the victims in New Orleans, is proving what's called reasonable foreseeability. What does that mean? You've got to prove You've got to prove that it was reasonably foreseeable, for example, to the Mandale Bay, to MGM, that somebody could get access to the thirty second floor and you know, pull out of some automatic weapons shoot and kill people. Here. You've got to show that there's reasonably foreseeable that somebody would take a truck or a car and drive through and kill people. How do you prove that fell You prove it prior incidents's prior reports right all throughout the country.

That to me would seem that would seem obvious.

I mean they've had specific threats and they and they guard against that specifically.

Yeah, in New Orleans, you're right right in New Orleans, if heart present agree with you. In Vegas. In Vegas still, man, it was it was daunt It was a lot harder because think about it, you got to get proved that somebody could go up in a room. But by the grace of God, we dug deep and found out that there was a prior report with the Mandalei Bay six years prior where a guy actually went up on a high floor and had a semiotic we automatic weapon that was pointing it at the Las Vegas Strip. That's all we needed Phil to win that case. That's how we help win. But in Orleans, man, that's a slam dunk. The city's gonna get sued. There is reasonable foreseeability that some lunatic would do what they did. I just feel bad for family members that this cap, this monetary cap, might limit, you know, what they should really be entitled to recover.

And now, looking ahead, of course, we got the super Bowl coming up there February ninth, I would imagine security would be unprecedented, even though Super Bowl is already what they call a national security special event and the FEDS are in charge. Could you imagine what it would be like to be in New Orleans in advance of the Super Bowl.

Now, yeah, so you know, I'll go one stuff further. I was pretty upset that the Notre Dame Georgia football game took place the next day. Right, think about it. Do you think that local and federal law enforcement was able to parse out everything that happened, and you know, for example, serve search warrants to get his phone and get access to his computer, and you know, find out the text messages, to find out whether there was any other people helping. I thought it was patently irresponsible of the NCAA to allow this football in the city, to allow that football game to go forward for that reason, and the second reason is to allow people to grieve. Right died and you're having a football game.

Well, at least they postponed it one night. They weren't even going to do that initially.

I know, dude, I mean, I mean, really, it was less than twenty four hours. But look, look at the end of the day, let's call it what it is. I mean that this was a catastrophic failure in New Orleans. You had resources available. You should have had him out there. What are you going to do now for the Super Bowl? What I've learned pil is in these mass tragedies it's really an opportunity to learn. Every setback is a set up to make things better in our world, and we have to learn from this. Right, what are the feds? What are the local government? What's law enforcement going to do for the Super Bowl to make sure that everybody's safe? And they they better get on it pretty quick. Right, You're not only barriers, but but but for example, Phil, are they are they serving social media? That's been my big beat since Vegas. You people, look, this guy posted on social media too. Correct, All these mass killers post ahead of time, like a manifesto that they're going to do something bad. What are we doing to canvass that, to find out what somebody nefarious might be up to try to prevent it. That's a separate layer of security that really needs to get into place for the Super Bowl.

No, you're one hundred percent correct, And we spent some time talking about that earlier this afternoon and then yesterday as well. It's all of this discussion about he was radicalized, was he self radicalized, was he recruited? And you know, all that sort of a pure and detail. But the point, as you mentioned, is not just to learn what happened to this guy but how you prevent it from happening to the next person. And what about this massive security apparatus from the local, state, and national level of Terrorism task Force and the National Security Agency which opposedly listens in on all of our communications and has computer programs that can pick out red flags and key phrases. I mean, yes, in a country of a three hundred and thirty five million people, it's not easy to stop one bad guy. But as you mentioned, it seems like this was just a failure on so many levels.

Well, and still one last point that you just maybe think of another point, which is where's the federal government's responsibility in this And that's where some of these families and uros might they might be able to go after the federal government and where there is no CONFI damages. What do I mean by that? Well, like you just said, you made a great point. This was if this was deemed a terrorist attack. Even if it's not, it's the duty of the federal government as well to help state and local officials prevent terroristic acts. Right for example, with the Rose Bull I live in Pasadena.

Yeah, just the other day from the Rose Bull.

Dude, you don't think that the fed was involved in safeguarding the Rose Bowl parade in the football game the other day. I mean the federal government should be involved. Are they involved? Do we know? Is there transparency? How involved was the federal government in helping local officials in New Orleans in advance of the Sugar Bowl? What is the federal government going to do to help prevent a similar act for the Super Bowl? So we need two layers of government, and I think we need more transparency in what they're doing. Federal government needs to be doing more in terms of trying to, you know, ferret out these lunatics, and they have the resources to do that, and that's you know, we need both both of that to prevent this from happening. Again.

Amen to that.

Brian Cleaypool passiting a base attorney. I appreciate your insight as always, good to talk to you and look forward to.

Talking with you again.

You bet take care for it.

But I'm Phil human In for John Coblt.

You're listening to John Cobelt on demand from KFI Am six forty.

I'm Phil human In for a John Cobelt with you till four o'clock this afternoon. The news can tines to be dominated by the fallout from the New Orleans terror attack. The suspect motivated inspired by by ISIS is the choice that the FBI is using one hundred percent inspired by is their terminology. And then the investigators are trying to figure out, based on a search of him, his electronics, of his life, of his friends, of his family, when this Jabbar fellow became quote radicalized. And again, if you use Google these days, which we do a lot. I do a lot because I'm constantly like searching for information. And when then when we're here on KFI, you know, with hours to fill a lot of what we depend on is the Internet to be honest, researching articles, gathering information. And when you use Google these days, and I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. The first thing that pops up right is what they call an AI overview. I guess it's a good thing if you accept the fact that AI in this instance serves to scour the Internet, scour available resources and then quickly compile the best information available as opposed to doing a Google search. And we've all done this, right, And you search, say radicalization, and you come up with, you know, a thousand different sources of information and how.

Do you pick them?

So what AI does is consolidate and summarize them, which quite frankly I appreciate. So this radicalization concept because we're trying to figure out how someone becomes radicalized, How someone born in this country, grew up in this country, becomes so disillusioned with the way of life that we have, with the freedoms that we have, with the customs that we have. Whether it's music, whether it's alcohol, whether it's entertainment, whether it's dating. I mean, something pushed this guy over the edge. So how does one become radicalized? And what is radicalized means? It means basically adopting extreme beliefs or ideologies, often through you know, we've seen this exposure to extremist narratives. This could be someone that has a personal grievance, it's someone that has a sense of isolation. It's someone that has a desire for belonging to a different group.

It could be someone that's recruited.

By an extremist group, or they're exposed to propaganda online and then they're searching for a community that validates their extremist views and gives them some sense of larger purpose.

And so here's some key points.

About radicalization vulnerability factors. And again I say this because our goal in and covering these stories is not just to report on the sensational, on the sad, on the dramatic, on the outrageous, on the loss, but it's to try to educate ourselves. We talked yesterday about to see something, say something, try to educate ourselves about who is committing these kinds of outrageous acts, terrorist acts, crimes. How do we identify them if they're our neighbor or our friend, or our work colleague or our family member. And then what is our responsibility to report that to try to prevent the next truck attack that kills fourteen people of New Year's morning in city blank. So key points about radicalization vulnerability factors. Individuals experiencing personal challenges like job loss, relationship issues which apparently was this suicide bomber in the cyber truck in Vegas, discrimination trauma, and then they're more SUSCEPTI doable to radicalization because you're frustrated and you're like searching for some kind of greater meaning in your life. And then of course we know that extremist groups use online platforms to spread propaganda, to target individuals that might have a grievance against America, against society, against whatever it is that you feel offended by. I've talked about this many times that I feel strongly that when the history of our time is written, whether it's a couple of hundred years from an hour or five hundred years from now, if the Earth survives, that the Internet as a whole will turn out to be a net negative. I just think as great as it is that you can google things or send a picture of your dinner on Instagram to all of your followers, or you know, buy a car online, or pick your favorite Internet application, I just think the downside the negative. The dark web is so costly and so damaging, especially the young people who whose minds aren't yet fully formed yet, spend hour after hour with their heads down staring at their phone or their laptop alone, not talking to people. The downside of the Internet is just overwhelming to me. So we're talking about key points about radicalization. Obviously we know that people can be recruited. It's interesting, and it's that it's a gradual process. This isn't something that happens overnight. So it's hard necessarily you're seeing somebody on a regular basis to get that sense that they're going down the wrong path, they're going down into a deep dark hole. And we do know that, you know, radical groups, really, any group, but radical groups in particular give people a strong sense of identity and purpose, and especially if you feel like you're marginalized somehow or you're discriminated again, so you're disconnected from mainstream society. Again, all of this wisdom coming from the Internet that I'm denouncing with like a really quick AI overview of how someone becomes radicalized.

How does someone become get behind the wheel of.

A truck and plow through crowds of innocent people celebrating New Year's Eve in New Orleans? I mean, how does that happen? This is just a question that is fascinating to me. And then as individuals, it says, become more radicalized, then, as you can imagine, they sort of justify almost anything to achieve their goals. And their goals might be to strike out against Western society, to strike out against a particular group. If you're a white supremacist, if you're an anti Semiti, and there's lots of written. I mean, what are the four stages of radicalization? Why extremist acts? The National Institute of Justice as articles that go on in all about five things about the role of social network and domestic terror, how do people radicalize, radicalism and extremism, how children may be at risk. In other words, there is a wealth of information about this, but what we haven't seen is an equal amount of information about how you prevent people who become radicalized from taking that next step into violent acts that kill innocent people. It's a lot to think about it on a Friday afternoon, the first Friday of January twenty twenty five. But these are things that we unfortunately have to deal with. Right now, let's deal with the latest news from Debbermark in the KFI twenty four hour News.

From Hey, you've been listening to the John Cobalt Show podcast.

You can always hear the show live on KFI Am six forty from one to four pm every Monday through Friday, and of course, anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.

The John Kobylt Show

John and Ken have been on KFI for over thirty years and with Ken's recent retirement John now takes  
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 2,573 clip(s)