I believe we all have different reasons for being here. My interests use OSINT to identify victims and traffickers and general research into cyber-related fields. I find a lot of great info on LinkedIn (that's how I found 'We Fight Monsters'!). If you're interested in learning more about OSINT and it's applications two of the best accounts to follow are Ubikron (https://www.linkedin.com/company/ubikron/) and OSINT Experts Society (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13047129/). Both have plenty of resources and regularly post items of interest.

I have been thinking a lot about an old high school friend of mine who was radicalized. His name was Ahmad Abu Samra. You can Google him and find his story. I knew Ahmad long before his trajectory took a very different path. We met when we were both in High School. We attended the same Mosque. We played sports. We did everything together. Then, somewhere between junior and senior year of high school, something changed. He began to spew radical ideologies. He dressed in traditional Islamic wear. Grew a beard. I knew someone or an organization got to him at the Mosque. I never liked attending this Mosque for that very reason. There were radicals who infiltrated the Mosque. Many discussions of radicalization focus on ideology first — slogans, manifestos, or the extremist content that people consume. What too often gets overlooked is how behavioral shifts are the earliest indicators — long before someone can be labeled “radicalized.” In Ahmad’s case, to those close to him, the shift wasn’t defined by a sudden sermon or a manifesto he shared online. It was a series of seemingly small yet consistent social behaviors — withdrawal from long-standing relationships, increasing emotional rigidity toward grievances, and an evolving sense of identity threat in response to global events that had little real impact on his everyday life. By the time his association with violent networks escalated — eventually leading him overseas and into organizational structures tied with ISIS propaganda and publication efforts — those who knew him had already seen the behavioral drift for years. This pattern is not unique. In my experience, whether in fieldwork or in reviewing cases of Western foreign fighters, the sequence matters: 🔹 Early behavior change (social isolation, grievance escalation) 🔹 Cognitive framing around perceived injustices 🔹 Affiliation with like-minded peers 🔹 Movement toward operational engagement. Too often, analysts and policymakers react at the ideological stage — after someone is already firmly embedded in extremist networks. If we want effective prevention, we must see the behavioral signals that precede that stage.

Most people think lying is simple. It’s not. Lying is work—and understanding why people lie and how the brain behaves under deception can help civilians navigate everyday life more safely and intelligently. This isn’t about interrogations. It’s about situational awareness, boundaries, and discernment. Why People Lie (At a Human Level) People don’t usually lie because they’re “bad people.” They lie because their brain is trying to avoid consequences. That consequence could be: - Social embarrassment - Reputational damage - Financial loss - Relationship fallout - Accountability When someone feels threatened—emotionally or socially—the nervous system activates, and deception becomes a coping strategy The Hidden Cost of Lying: Cognitive Load Telling the truth is simple. You just recall what happened. Lying is mentally expensive. A person who lies has to: - Suppress the real story - Invent a believable alternative - Keep it consistent over time - Anticipate questions - Monitor how they’re coming across That mental strain often shows up indirectly—not as obvious “tells,” but as subtle changes in behavior What Civilians Often Notice (Without Realizing Why) When someone is under cognitive strain from deception, you may observe: - Delayed or overly careful answers - Vague language instead of specifics - Over-control of emotions (too calm, too rehearsed) - Deflecting instead of directly answering - Inconsistencies over time Important note: These don’t prove someone is lying. But patterns matter more than moments. Emotional “Leakage” Is Real Even when someone tries to control themselves, emotions can leak through: - Anxiety about being exposed - Guilt or shame - Occasionally, subtle satisfaction at “getting away with it” These leaks are often brief and unconscious—which is why listening and observing calmly is more powerful than confrontation Why This Matters for Everyday Life For civilians, this knowledge helps you:

One of the most dangerous moments in any investigation is confirmation bias. I’ll give you a quick example, there was an armed robbery in the city that I work in. The lead detective had a theory of who the suspect might be now keep in mind the suspect had a mask on and gloves. Now, without concrete evidence that pointed him in that direction, he already had a suspect in mind, why? Because the suspect lived in close proximity to the business, he is also known to be a serial robber. My problem with that early on assumption is that now he needs to build a case around the theory that it was the suspect versus gathering all the evidence like interviews, technology, cameras in the area etc…. Long story short I was right it did not turn out to be who this detective thought it was. The Lesson: It’s when we lock onto an early theory and—without realizing it—start filtering everything through that lens. Evidence that supports our belief gets amplified. Evidence that contradicts it gets minimized, explained away, or ignored entirely. In investigations, this isn’t an academic problem. It’s a truth problem. I’ve seen solid investigators become intellectually rigid once a narrative forms. The case stops being about what happened and becomes about proving we were right. That’s when blind spots grow. That’s when mistakes compound. That’s when innocent details turn into “inconvenient facts.” The danger isn’t incompetence. The danger is confidence without constant challenge. Strong investigators do a few things differently: • They actively search for disconfirming evidence • They ask, “What would have to be true for my theory to be wrong?” • They invite peer challenge instead of resisting it • They separate ego from outcomes • They stay comfortable saying, “I don’t know—yet” Good investigations are dynamic, not linear. The story should evolve as new information comes in. The moment your theory becomes untouchable, your investigation becomes fragile. This applies beyond law enforcement.

Active shooter events are chaotic, fast, and violent. They unfold in seconds, not minutes. And while civilians often hear the aftermath on the news, law enforcement lives inside the first moments — where every decision carries life-or-death weight. Here’s what people don’t always see from our side of the line: 1. Officers Are Trained to Move Toward the Threat The standard across the country is simple: Find the shooter. Stop the killing. Stop the dying. Gone are the days of waiting for SWAT. Patrol officers — the ones already on the street — form up and move in immediately. That means they enter the building while shots are being fired, knowing the suspect may be around any corner. 2. Speed Matters More Than Perfection In an active shooter, every second equals lives. Officers aren’t clearing rooms slowly and methodically like in the movies. They’re bypassing people, skipping hallways, stepping over chaos — all to get to the shooter as fast as humanly possible. It’s controlled aggression, not cinematic tactics. 3. Communication and Intelligence Are Broken, Messy, and Loud Inside these events: - Everyone is screaming - Fire alarms are blaring - Radios cut in and out - People are running in opposite directions - Officers may not know how many shooters there are It’s not organized. It’s not clean. It’s sensory overload — and cops have to make decisions anyway. 4. Officers Will Walk Past the Wounded This is one of the hardest realities for civilians to understand. The mission is: Stop the threat first. If the shooter is still active, officers may move past injured victims to prevent more victims. It’s not coldness. It’s triage under fire. Stopping the shooter ultimately saves more lives. 5. Once the Threat Is Down, the Mission Changes Immediately after neutralizing the shooter, officers switch roles: - Casualty care - Tourniquets - Evacuations - Securing medical routes - Guiding fire/EMS into the building Cops become the bridge between chaos and rescue.