The Andrew Branca Show

Houston TX-area homeowner Terry Willis was alerted to a swarm of car thieves amongst his driveway vehicles by his home security cameras around o-dark-thirty.His response? He stepped out of his home pointing an AR rifle he'd built himself, and told them "I don't think you want to do that." The car thieves fled in comic-like desperation. No property was taken, no shots were fired, no person was injured. Happy ending all around--or is it? Is the use of an AR rifle in defense of property lawful, or could this homeowner be facing serious legal jeopardy. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Two men, one much larger than the other, get into a physical confrontation on a Philadelphia subway platform, with the larger man holding the smaller against a support column.Suddenly the smaller man--now identified as Chaz Wearing--throws a punch, then another, sending the larger man staggering off the platform and onto the tracks--seconds before subway car enters the station and runs over the fallen man with fatal results. Was this death lawful self-defense on the part of Wearing? Was it a genuine accident? Was it involuntary manslaughter--the criminal charge that has since been brought against Wearing?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

In today's Law of Self Defense Q&A Show we'll address a variety of self-defense law questions, including:04:34 How does Platinum Membership work, what do I get?08:55 Can I be a licensed bodyguard to my own wife, and then carry in restricted locations?12:19 Are the flurry of new gun control laws being passed constitutional?21:40 When can I point my gun at another person and not have any legal risks?36:06 Does a prosecutor know what level of resources you’re bringing to your legal defense?46:56 Can I use deadly force to prevent guns being stolen from a gun store?53:05 Should I video my surroundings, evidence, witnesses, after my use-of-force event?57:25 What should I do if onlookers try to keep me scene after I’ve defended myself?01:02:51 What are the legal issues around my keeping aggressors outside of my personal space?01:08:04 What do you think of the Byrna OC “pistol”?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

One driver cuts the gas line at Costco, and finds himself being chastised by a second driver for the offense.The first driver decides to escalate the verbal confrontation to the physical be securing an expanding baton from his truck.The second driver responds to this by presenting a pistol.Who is in the right? Both? Neither? What could YOU do?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

In an officer-involved shooting that is reminiscent of Texas Police Officer Aaron Dean's 2019 prowler-investigating shooting of Atatiana Jefferson--for which Dean was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 11 years and 10 months in jail (perhaps not coincidentally that shooting occurred on November 10)--another Texas police officer has shot and killed another homeowner while responding to a prowling call. Last week Texas Police Officer Lauren Nick responded to a prowling call, briefly investigated the area, then rang the doorbell of the caller. Almost instantly, Aaliyah Anders​, a 26-year-old black woman, rushed out of the door, screaming wildly, and pointing a handgun at Officer Nick. Nick responded with four rounds fired in self-defense, killing Anders. Not that it should matter, but in both cases the shooting victim was black. Officer Dean was white. I am unaware of the race of Officer Nick. This event was captured on both the officer's body-worn camera and on the residence Ring camera, and I'll share those videos during today's show. ​Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Three men got involved in a low-level confrontation outside an Illinois pizza place last Friday--and things escalated quickly, as captured on video.Ultimately, Michael Freund, who was watching the other two men wrestle each other on a porch. One of those two men was purportedly a friend of Freund's, and the other was Dexter Perkins. Freund would ultimately pull out a pistol fired two warning shots, and then fired another 9 bullets into Perkins, killing him.Freund has since been arraigned on a charge of first-degree murder and denied pre-trial release.Could this be a lawful use of force in defense of others, with Freund intervening in lawful defense of his friend? Or was this just a senseless murder, as so many are?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A Texas mother of four children is compelled to shoot a burglar violently entering her home at night after she's unable to get the police to respond to her repeated 911 calls for help. An Oregon woman facing a similar violent home intruder spends minutes talking with 911 as her home is breached, her pleas for police assistance being rejected--unfortunately, in this case the woman had no gun, and is sexually assaulted by her attacker.We have the 911 recording of this second case--and I can tell you that it's a tough listen. Today's show will focus on the increasing reality that nobody is coming to help you, and you must be prepared to be your own first responder--or suffer the consequences of being helpless against violent criminal predation.Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Last Friday USCCA Chairman Tim Schmidt released a YouTube video responding to varied criticisms of that organization. In particular, Tim spoke to criticism of how USCCA managed its legal defense obligations to two of its members--Kayla Giles (later found guilty of murder at trial and sentenced to life) and Alan Colie (found guilty on a mixed verdict, and ironically sentenced the day prior to the release of this USCCA video). Full disclosure--some of that criticism has come from me, and can be found here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/usccaHaving watched Tim's video, however, I can't help but note that it fails to actually address key concerns about how USCCA handled the Giles and Colie cases, and therefore fails to address concerns about how much trust USCCA members can confidently place in the organization to "have their backs," as USCCA marketing materials proclaim. Today's Law of Self Defense Show will be a response to this USCCA video, explaining my remaining concerns and where I see Tim's explanations of the Giles and Colie cases to fall short. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

You use deadly defensive force because you believe your attacker is coming at you with a knife in hand, and you kill that aggressor--but it later turns out the "knife" was merely a large, black magic marker. In fact, you were MISTAKEN about the threat you perceived.Does that mistake invalidate your legal justification of self-defense?Exactly just this mistake happened to Denver police recently, and this week the local prosecutor released his written decision on whether to charge the officers involved.In today's Law of Self Defense show we cover that event, the DA's charging decision, and the general legal principles around mistakes in self-defense.Join me LIVE at Noon ET to discuss!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Attorney David Betras, a self-described "Super Lawyer" out of Ohio, with claimed expertise in criminal defense law, recently published an opinion piece entitled "Age of dueling returns with ’stand your ground’ gun laws in U.S."In that article he concludes: "The stand-your-ground law is dangerous enough, it shouldn’t be the avenue for the resurgence of the duel."Could this be true? Do stand-your-ground laws legalize dueling? After all, that's what this criminal defense "Super Lawyer" is telling us! Or is this simply another cautionary tale that we ought not blindly believe claimed self-defense law simply because it comes out of lawyer's mouth?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Yesterday the internet fed my email a whole series of e-articles written by various (purportedly human) authors on the topic of Stand-Your-Ground law in different states. The legal accuracy of these articles ranged from OK to just wrong. It then occurred to me that all these suddenly produced articles on the same topic and of similar degrees of bad legal takes might well be the product of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to produce internet content. In today's Law of Self Defense Show we'll take a look at some of those articles, juxtapose with with the actual self-defense law from the states covered, and more generally discuss why you MUST NOT TRUST AI-produced self-defense law.Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Father and son farmers in South Carolina have been charged with murder after they killed an armed trespasser who they say was threatening their land and livestock.In today's show we'll consider the question whether it's lawful to kill a simple trespasser, in the context of the news report on this event, as well as the police incident report and the arrest warrants.Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today's Law of Self Defense Show answers questions sent into us by our Platinum Members, who have access to a Platinum-only Q&A form for submitting such questions directly to me.Answered during today's show are the following questions (with time stamps):When can I use force to prevent theft of another person’s property?If I only carry my gun when going to dangerous places, can that be used against me in court?If intruder enters home through unlocked door, how does that affect my self-defense rights?Ever lawful to use deadly force against unarmed attacker, prior to attacker making contact?When can deadly force be used to stop an unarmed kidnapper?If armed intruders are outside my closed front door, can I just shoot through the door?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Alivia Schwab, a 40-year-old mother of three, was under the care of mental health counselors for serious mental issues, and had only recently been returned to her apartment from institutionalization. On September 29, Schwab had her counselor on the phone, and was threatening to kill herself with a knife. The counselor notified the police so they could intervene.Morris IL police officers Nick Pampinella and Casie Price responded to the call, encountering Swab as she stood in the open door of her apartment. Schwab had a cell phone in her right hand, held to her ear. In her left hand she held a knife. As Officer Pampinella ordered her to drop the knife while holding her at gunpoint, Schwab advanced relentlessly towards him, culminating in a sudden rush that led Pampinella to shoot her. Schwab died instantly. Throughout this encounter Officer Price demonstrated what can only be described as utter competence. In particular, even as the officers initially approached Schwab's apartment, Pampinella had instructed Price to be prepared to use non-lethal force (this would be in the form of her Taser). In fact, Price made absolutely no preparation to do so, under circumstances where Price's effective use of her Taser would likely have made it unnecessary for Pampinella to use deadly force upon Schwab.In other words, but for Price's apparent incompetence, Schwab could well still be alive. Schwab's three children--all under 18 at the time of her death--have now filed a §1983 Federal lawsuit against Officers Pampinella and Price, as well as their department. Today we examine both the video of this tragic shooting, the legal justification of Pampinella's use of force, and whether there actually exists legal liability in civil court for Price's apparent incompetence as a police officer.Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A question that comes up with some regularity is what are the legal consequences if a round fired in self-defense unintentionally kills an innocent bystander.Is the defender guilty of murder of that bystander? Of manslaughter? Is there any legal liability at all? And, whatever the answer--why? What's the underlying legal doctrine?I've addressed this question many times, but last week a Law of Self Defense Member asked during Friday's live stream about a case out of the Kansas Supreme Court that he believed suggests my answer is wrong--or, at least, is contradicted by that particular case.Is it possible? Did Attorney Andrew F. Branca make a mistake about use-of-force law?It's certainly POSSIBLE--like all of you, I'm merely human. And I always appreciate the possibility being brought to my attention, as that ensures I keep my use-of-force law expertise as sharp as possible.In this particular case, however, the Kansas case cited is exactly consistent with my usual explanation of how the law treats bystander killings--and in today's show I'll share that case with you and explain why I'm still right. :-) THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

An apparently crazy woman apparently attempted to burn down the birth home of Martin Luther King Jr. in Atlanta.Fortunately, two tourists from Utah saw what was happening and intervneed to stop her.Next, two off-duty police from New York City made a citizen's arrest and held her for Atlanta police.This is, of course, exactly what society should want these citizens to do.But was ANY of it lawful? Could they have been setting themselves up for a life sentence in prison?A: Yes!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today I read through a recent #NRA magazine article by Sheriff Jim Wilson--whose work I much enjoy, including this piece I'll be treating with some modest criticism. Sheriff Wilson has much good advice and accurate observations in this article, but nevertheless falls prey to perhaps the most common failing in otherwise well-informed people when it comes to the legal use of force--the conflation of weapons law, on the one hand, and use-of-force law on the other. Treating these two entirely distinct areas of the law as if they overlapped or are in any substantive manner related can only foster confusion in the mind of the public interested in being able to defend themselves, their family, and their property from criminal predation, and diminishes the clarity of understanding necessary to remain within the legal boundaries of both. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Back on April 2 of this year DoorDash delivery guy Alan Colie found himself confronted in a shopping mall food court by two aggressive pranksters, the leader of whom was one Tanner Cook. Colie would ultimately shoot Cook once, causing serious but not fatal injuries. Colie would be charged with malicious wounding, firing of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and and discharging a firearm in a building--all felonies. Colie's sole legal defense to all three charges was the justification of self-defense.In September Colie was acquitted by jury of the malicious wounding and use of a firearm in commission of a felony charges, but found guilty of the lesser discharging a firearm in a building charge. The trial judge declined the defense request to dismiss the conviction on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the acquittals, which necessarily required the jury to find self-defense.Sentencing is scheduled for December 21, and Colie is looking at a maximum of 5 years.I originally did a legal breakdown of this event in the Law of Self Defense Show of October 2, but I return to the event today for reasons having less to do with the legal merits of the case and more to do with the role that "self-defense insurance" company USCCA may have played--or, rather, may have refused to pay.Evidence in this case suggests that Colie was a member of USCCA at the time of the shooting, that Colie called USCCA immediately after the shooting (as USCCA instructs its members to do), and that USCCA may have refused to honor its purported commitment to Colie to cover his legal expenses in this self-defense trial.This rings all too consistent with how USCCA similar refused to cover USCCA member Kayla Giles after she claimed self-defense following the shooting of her estranged husband in September 2018. Giles would later be found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to life plus 30 years, a conviction later affirmed on appeal. To what extent her conviction was the result of her being denied desperately needed legal resources by USCCA can never be known.This was all brought to my attention again in recent days by Law of Self Defense Member Floyd, who linked me to an interesting discussion of the Colie case and the relevance of USCCA to that case on the video channel of Attorneys Marc Victor and Andy Marcantel--both of whom I've had personal conversation in the past, and who strike me as smart and capable attorneys. Floyd also linked me to some news stories that raise similar questions.So, did USCCA refuse to cover another of their members in a self-defense case? In today's show we'll take a look at the available evidence.Learn why CCW Safe is the ONLY "Self-Defense Insurance" I TRUST!lawofselfdefense.com/trustLearn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

APOLOGIES FOR THE POOR AUDIO QUALITY! One of our Law of Self Defense Platinum Members, who I'll identify as Rich, reached out to us recently to ask about an apparent contradiction in the home defense law of his state.(Platinum Members have a special Q&A form that allows them to submit questions directly to me, to be answered either privately or publicly--learn how to become a Platinum Member NOW for only 82 cents a day by going to https://lawofselfdefense.com/82cents)The home defense statute provides a generous provision for use of deadly force when dealing with an intruder into one's home.However, the home defense JURY INSTRUCTION, which is the only law a jury would hear in a home defense trial, so sharply limits the statute that it all but eliminates any special privilege for home defense.The difference means that any home defender who relied in good faith on the statute would find themselves convicted and sentenced to as much as life in prison if the jury relied in good faith on the jury instruction.How can this be? What can be done about it?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This past Monday morning 20-year-old George Obregon Jr. approached rapper Nardo Wick after Wick's performance at a Tampa night club, for the purpose of asking if he could take a photo with the rapper. The encounter was captured on video.As he approached, Obregon was viciously punched by a large man standing beside the rapper, and appeared to suffer an immediate brain injury. Obgregon was then punched to the ground by a smaller man standing beside the rapper, striking his head on the ground.At last report Obregon was hospitalized in critical but stable condition.In today's show we'll explore the potential criminal and civil liability of the men who punched Obregon, as well as the potential civil liability of the rapper Wick. As part of that discussion we'll also address the legal defenses that might be raised by any of those parties.Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A 14-year-old student was attacked by an unarmed mob in a Raleigh NC high school, and defended himself with a knife he carried in violation of school policies.The result: one of his attackers was killed, and another seriously injured.We've got the attack captured on video, and will break down the legal dynamics in today's Law of Self Defense Show, answering such questions as:What can a defender do if attacked by a mob in this manner?Was this use of deadly defensive force lawful under the circumstances? What liability does the 14-year-old face for his possession of a deadly weapon on school property?What's the criminal liability of the mob that assaulted him--could they be facing the possibility of capital punishment? (A: Yes!)And more!Join me LIVE at NOON ET today to discuss!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today's Law of Self Defense Show focuses on video of a convenience store armed robbery in which both the clerk and customer being robbed appear completely compliant with the robbers' demands.Despite this compliance, the customer is shot through the head, and the clerk is gunned down as well, both with apparent fatal results. This video is an abject lesson that compliance cannot guarantee safety at the muzzle of a bad guy's gun. So if you find yourself the victim of an armed robbery, should you simply comply? Should you promptly fight back? Should you think through that tactical problem TODAY, rather than in the moment? Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today’s show focuses on the question of when is a defender legally permitted to shoot first, and we’ll explore that question with several shootings captured on video.Fair warning—each of these videos shows people being shot, sometimes with apparently fatal results.If that makes you uncomfortable, no shame, but this might not be the show for you.I should also point out that we don’t have all the facts for each of these videos that would allow us to come to some definite conclusion about whether these particular shootings are likely lawful or not.Nevertheless, the videos are useful as providing frameworks within which we can understand how to properly frame the legal questions, through which more fully developed facts would get us to a legally sound answer. After all, if you can’t even ask the right question, you certainly can’t get to the right answer.Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today’s show covers two men who used guns in defense of either themselves or others, only to find themselves promptly and firmly punished by the legal system that routinely allows criminals to walk free. Ironically, both men are from New York City, though the events took place on opposite sides of the nation.The first of these is Vince Ricci, a retired New Yorker who now lives in Los Angeles. At around 7:30 PM on Saturday, Nov. 4, Ricci was about to enter his home carrying a cup of coffee, when he suddenly found himself the victim of an armed robbery by two men. Ricci managed to get his own pistol into action and drove the two men off with gunfire. This event was caught on video, which we’ll share with you today.This week we learned that Los Angeles County, the issuing authority for gun permits in LA, has revoked Ricci’s concealed carry permit. The second man we’re discussing today is New Yorker John Rote. Rote was on a subway platform when he happened to see a woman being mugged by an apparently deranged homeless man. Rote retrieved a revolver from his backpack and used it to drive the mugger away—including by imprudently firing two warning shots.Rote was immediately arrested, charged with multiple crimes, and is currently out on bail awaiting prosecution. Not helpful to Rote’s circumstances is that the woman victim has announced that she became most frightened when she realized Rote had brought a gun to her defense.So, with that introduction, let’s dive into today’s show. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

On November 1, high school student Jonathan Lewis Jr., protesting that a smaller student had been robbed and dumped into a trash can, was beaten unconscious by a pack of 8 or more other students. Jonathan would die of his blunt force trauma after six days on life support.​The core question of today's show: WHEN does a disparity of numbers between attackers and a defender justify the use of deadly defensive force? Enjoy the show!CLICK HERE --->Jonathan Lewis, Jr. Family Go-Fund-MeLearn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

It's rare but very pleasant to come across a solid use-of-force legal analysis by another lawyer, so I was pleased to see exactly that happen with the account @JaimePretellEsq with respect to a use-of-force event that occurred recently in Florida.In this event, two white men beside an SUV appear to be mocking a black man outside a strip mall, and the black man ultimately presents a gun and shoots them as they attempt to flee. One of the victims was injured and the other was killed, and the shooter is now charged with murder.The event was captured on video, which I'll share with you in today's show.Attorney Jame Pretell did a sound job analyzing this use-of-force event on Twitter, and he seems an account worth a follow--certainly I followed him. I mostly add some additional context.Enjoy the show!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A car wash clerk in Concord CA find himself the victim of a felony robbery carried out by a masked woman wielding a large knife, at various points holding the point of the knife within inches of the clerk's neck. The robbery was captured on video, which we'll share with all of you today.The clerk is entirely compliant with the robbery, and makes no effort to either resist or defend himself--even when the robber momentarily places her knife down on the register in order to more expeditiously rifle the drawer.Could the clerk have seized the knife? Could he have then used it on the robber? Could the clerk, if armed with a pistol, have used that pistol as deadly defensive force upon the robber?That's what we'll discuss in today's Law of Self Defense Show!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Last Thursday, on November 9, Ralph Bouzy ambushed several police officers, using his speeding car as a deadly weapon to cause several of the officers critical injuries--at last report there was a good chance one officer would lose a leg. Bouzy then exited his crashed car, and advanced on the officers, including one officer seriously injured in the intentional ramming attack.Not that it should matter, but this is the racially energized world we live in: Bouzy is black, and the officers involved appear to be white.Ultimately, the officers took Bouzy into custody using their non-deadly force Tasers to compel Bouzy's compliance with arrest. Bouzy is now charged with three counts of attempted murder.The question arises, however, whether any one or perhaps several of the officers involved would have been legally privileged to have used deadly force upon Bouzy--specifically, their service pistols--rather than limiting themselves to their non-deadly force Tasers.Join us as we discuss this issue in today's Law of Self Defense Show!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This past Sunday, November 12, US Secret Service agents assigned to the protection of Naomi Biden, the granddaughter of President Joe Biden, observed several people breaking into their parked and unoccupied SUV in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington DC.Their response was to discharge a firearm--apparently in the absence of any legal justification for the use of deadly defensive force.Can we make it make sense? Join us for today's Law of Self Defense Show breaking down this circus of an event!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Last week I stopped at CCW Safe HQ in Oklahoma City, and had an extensive chat with Stan Campbell, COO, and Don West, National Trial Counsel.I had a great time talking with those two great guys with key strategic roles at that great organization, and I hope you enjoy it as well!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Right now, this very week in Wisconsin a man named Michael Mattioli is being tried for murder of Joel Acevedo on the grounds that Acevedo died as a result of the choke hold placed by Mattioli. The defendant claims he applied the chokehold for the sole purpose of self-defense, and only to the extent necessary for self-defense—and yet he could end up convicted of murder and spend the rest of his life in prison.Daniel Penny placed drug addict Jordan Neely in a purported choke hold on May 1 of this year, in defense of himself and other passengers on a NYC subway car.Neely died during the struggle, and now Penny is charged with second-degree (reckless) manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide (reckless, inattentive, careless).Earlier this year I participated in the legal defense of a Colorado man tried for murder, reckless manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide after he placed a man in a chokehold in self-defense, and the man died.(We secured that defendant’s acquittal, with the jury telling us afterwards that my expert witness testimony was key to their decision to acquit.)I believe there’s something else than murder or manslaughter at play in these and other instances in which chokeholds have been associated with death, under circumstances in which the person who placed the choke was utterly shocked that the death occurred.Let's discuss!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

I recently came across video of a violent interaction between a uniformed police officer making a traffic stop and the driver of the stopped vehicle. The encounter went poorly for the officer.Of particular note was the remarkably high level of both gun handling and aggression on the part of the stopped driver, who aggressively engaged the officer with gun fire and even pursued the officer while continuing to fire.This event raises the important question of just how much training a normal law-abiding citizen needs if they are to be prepared to lawfully defend themselves, their family, and their property from violent criminal predation. We discuss that and more in today’s Law of Self Defense Show!Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Most people think of Brazilian Jui-Jitsu (BJJ) as a non-deadly means of self-defense, and imagine using such skills to defend against a non-deadly force attack.There are, however, many techniques in BJJ that readily qualify as deadly force--because the definition of "deadly force" include not only force that can kill but also force that causes serious bodily injury. The many joint locks in BJJ that can utterly destroy a joint certainly would qualify as deadly force if carried to completion. Of course, there ARE circumstances in which using BJJ as deadly defensive force IS lawful. Today we share a video of a BJJ expert who successfully defends himself against an aggressor armed with a knife, and use that video as a platform to explore the circumstances in which the use of BJJ as deadly defensive force would be legally justified. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

You're ambushed by a deadly criminal predator--fortunately, you manage to instantly inflict a mortal injury on him. Can you continue to use deadly defensive force even though you've effectively already killed your attacker?Today's show addresses this important questions--and does so in a way that also documents your knowledge so that it can be shared with a jury if you're ever criminally charged in this kind of scenario.In today's show we both explain the importance of documenting your specialized knowledge to ensure that you are hard to convict if ever compelled to defend yourself and your family (in the public portion of the show), and we also share a very blood video of a gunfight in a bank that precisely illustrates and documents today's question (in the members-only portion of today's show. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A street performer "statue" attired in the style of Teddy Roosevelt eventually got enough pestering from an apparently intoxicated pedestrian that he threw a granite-like right fist into the pedestrian's face.Fortunately for us, the event was captured on video!Lawful self-defense?Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This past Sunday night Jason Pass was filmed fatally shooting Bladimy Mathurin (47) and Chinwai Mode (27) in a Brooklyn NY hallway. This morning, Pass charged at police with a 6" knife, and this time it was he who was fatally shot, by police. The shooting on Sunday involving Pass and his two victims have raised some questions on social media about whether this use of deadly force could potentially have qualified as lawful self-defense--in part because Mathurin had initially approached aggressively into Pass' personal space while holding up a pair of scissors.Join me today LIVE at Noon ET as we break down this use-of-force event, applying actual New York State use-of-force legal principles, and note where a claim of self-defense would have more, or less merit!#JasonPass #Brooklyn #BladimyMathurin #ChinwaiModeLearn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This past Saturday, October 28, hockey player Adam Johnson had his neck fatally slashed by the ice skate of opposing player Matt Petgrave. The event was captured on video, which we'll share in today's show. CAUTION: The video shows the infliction of a fatal injury. The legal questions then arise: First, was this an intentional use of force by Petgrave on Johnson? Second, if intentional, would this killing be murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide?These questions require both a legal and factual analysis in order to arrive at a reasoned answer, and we'll tackle both of those in the context of the video of the event in today's show. I do note that this event took place in the United Kingdom, not America. As is our practice, however, we'll analyze this event using American principles of law. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to BE HARD TO CONVICT, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--AND MAKE YOURSELF HARD TO CONVICT!DON'T WAIT until you're actually ATTACKED--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

On Wednesday night a man identified as Robert Card engaged in a mass shooting, with news reports indicating as many as 18 people killed and many more wounded. Photos indicated he used an AR-pattern rifle to commit his vicious attack on innocents. It may seem counterintuitive that a madman gunning down innocent victims represents one of the SIMPLEST self-defense scenarios an armed citizen might encounter, but in fact that's the case. Learn the Self-Defense Law you NEED to STOP a MASS SHOOTER, for FREE!Grab your own copy of our best-selling guide to self-defense law for FREE!"The Law of Self Defense: Principles" is our best-selling, plain-English explanation of your legal privilege to use even deadly force in defense of yourself, your family, and others--INCLUDING FROM MASS SHOOTERS!DON'T WAIT until a mass shooter hits YOUR TOWN--by then it will be TOO LATE!---> Get your copy for FREE (except for S&H) by clicking HERE RIGHT NOW!Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Late last week several purported Seattle police officers began attempting a violent intrusion into an Auburn WA home (Auburn, incidentally is a full 17 miles outside of the Seattle city limits). The homeowner, perhaps finding the claims of these intruders to be police as less than credible, responds by firing a fussilade of rounds through his own front door at the intruders, inducing them to flee.Could this be a lawful use of force in self-defense and defense of dwelling? Even if the homeowner was shooting blindly through the door and unable to visually target specific intruders? What about the risks of that gun fire to innocent neighbors? What if the intruders had turned out to be actual police serving a no knock warrant? We answer all those questions and more!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today's show is a reading of an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") filed in the case of US v. Rahimi, which is proceeding to the US Supreme Court from the 5th Circuit.Rahimi involves the question of whether a presumptively law-abiding American citizen can be denied their Second Amendment rights when constrained by a domestic violence restraining order, in the absence of any finding of dangerousness on behalf of the person constrained by the order.Although gun control propagandists will argue that Rahimi is about giving guns to domestic abusers, in fact Second Amendment advocates readily agree Second Amendment rights can be denied to people demonstrated to be dangerous.It is the absence of any showing of dangerousness that is key to Rahimi.A recent 3-judge panel decision out of the 5th Circuit finding that the deprivation of Second Amendment rights as a consequence of a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a showing of dangerousness is an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.Today's show will be my reading of an amici curiae authored by Second Amendment law giant Attorney David Kopel, and friend of the Law of Self Defense community, Attorney Konsta Moros. In this amici curiae Kopel and Moros present powerful legal argument in support of the 5th Circuit decision read yesterday.Enjoy the show!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The Federal case of US v. Rahimi, working its way to the Supreme Court involves the question of whether a presumptively law-abiding American citizen can be denied their Second Amendment rights when constrained by a domestic violence restraining order, in the absence of any finding of dangerous on behalf of the person constrained by the order.Although gun control propagandists will argue that Rahimi is about giving guns to domestic abusers, in fact Second Amendment advocates readily agree Second Amendment rights can be denied to people demonstrated to be dangerous.It is the absence of any showing of dangerous that is key to Rahimi.Today's show is a reading of a recent 3-judge panel decision out of the 5th Circuit finding that the deprivation of Second Amendment rights as a consequence of a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a showing of dangerous is an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment.Rahimi is now heading to the Supreme Court for further argument.Tomorrow's show, incidentally, will be my reading of an amici curiae authored by Second Amendment law giant Attorney David Kopel, and friend of the Law of Self Defense community, Attorney Konsta Moros. In this amici curiae Kopel and Moros present powerful legal argument in support of the 5th Circuit decision being read today.Enjoy the show!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

No lawyer can be said to be engaged in good faith critical thinking if he’s not amenable to a reasoned change in opinion. I was reminded of this reality last evening while standing in line for the “Rise of the Resistance” ride at Disneyland in Orlando, Florida, reading a particular comment in response to a Law of Self Defense video I’d hurriedly posted that morning.I produce this morning’s video to acknowledge that this is one of those rare occasions in which I’ve been compelled by reasoned argument to change my opinion of a use-of-force event.THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

I was recently sent video of an instance in which a bystander's modest Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu skills were nevertheless sufficient to save the life of a pregnant police officer who was struggling with a violent and apparently deranged criminal suspect.It's also notable that I started my own BJJ just over a year ago (with about half that time off for medical reasons), and I share some of my choices, insights, and experiences.Spoiler: As you. might expect, a large part of my choosing BJJ in particular was because it is an exceptionally LEGALLY-SOUND martial art. Enjoy the show!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

I was just a guest on Mark Walter's Armed America Radio program again, and we discussed a bunch of topics including the Israeli massacre, the Second Amendment, gun control, the Brooklyn stabbing death of the white BLM activist by a young black man, the offensive use of pepper spray, the mere reasonable appearance of a threat, and much, much more!Enjoy the show!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

I was interviewed today on the Ross Kaminsky show, KOA radio, a 50,000 watt radio station heard all over Colorado and adjoining states, to discuss the madness of the Office of the State Public Defender, Colorado.Enjoy!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

This week the 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, granted a request by California's Attorney General to leave in place the state's current ban on standard-capacity magazines.In doing so, they stand in open rebellion against the United States Supreme Court--purportedly their superiors--in their refusal to even pretend to apply the constitutional legal analysis required the the Court's decision in Bruen.Join me today as I read the petulant 6-page majority opinion continuing the denial of Second Amendment rights to law-abiding Californians.Much more importantly, I also read the substantive 36-page dissent which would find the standard-capacity magazine ban unconstitutional. This dissent is a solidly grounded legal analysis deeply sourced in the Supreme Court's modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, including Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.It also reflects appropriate outrage at the feckless 9th Circuit majority.THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Although I previously read the "Letter of Banishment" from the Office of the State Public Defender, Colorado, signed by Jennifer L. Ahnstedt, Lead State Training Director, the previous reading involved the participation of some lawyer friends, and I've been told that it could be a bit more time-consuming and less easy to follow than would be a straight reading.So in today's show I provide a little background and events preceding the letter, and then read the letter straight through.Enjoy!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE INSURANCE PROVIDE I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

We normally think of OC (pepper) spray as being a less-than-lethal defensive weapon useful for dealing with non-deadly attacks.But what happens when OC is used OFFENSIVELY? In this real-world case captured on video, that offensive use of OC led directly to the death of the OC aggressor.Worth considering also is how an OFFENSIVE use of OC differs from a DEFENSIVE use, in terms of use-of-force law and real-world tactical options.THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE INSURANCE PROVIDE I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family. LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A masked aggressor arguing with two men appears to pretend to be presenting a knife, when one of his two victims decides to take decisive defensive action against the mere APPEARANCE of threat.Lawful? Let's take a look at the video of this use-of-force event and talk about it!THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE INSURANCE PROVIDE I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family. LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A motorcyclists riding amidst a crowd of others in Philadelphia got angry enough with a car driver that he decided to jump on the car's rear window and smash it into the vehicle.Would the occupants of that car have been legally justified in simply shooting that motorcyclists dead?What if that same motorcyclists had a pistol in hand when the car driver exited the vehicle to confront the rider? THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE INSURANCE PROVIDE I TRUST!There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family. LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trustDisclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.