LawofSelfDefense

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. Join me LIVE at Noon ET to discuss! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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. (https://youtu.be/p13X9mIEKS0) 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/uscca Having 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. Join me LIVE at Noon ET to discuss! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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? Join me today LIVE at Noon ET to discuss! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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. Join me LIVE at Noon ET! We'll also, of course, show you were can you CAN confidentially learn what you need to know to be hard to convict! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 will live stream at Noon ET. It will answer 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. On the schedule for today's show are the following questions: 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? That substantive portion of the show will be for Law of Self Defense Members ONLY--either Platinum or Standard members, and will continue to be live streamed on the Member dashboard--the live streams on YouTube, Rumble, and X will end prior to the start of the show where the questions posed are answered. Not Yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? It's only 99 CENTS! Get a two-week trial Law of Self Defense Membership for ONLY 99 CENTS at https://lawofselfdefense.com/trial Stay a member after the two week trial, and it's still dirt cheap, only about 30 cents a day, less than $10 a month! 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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. :-) Join LIVE at Noon ET to discuss! 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/trust You have a GUN so you're hard to KILL--know the LAW so you're hard to CONVICT. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ 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.

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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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.

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? Join me at NOON ET today to discuss! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 will live stream at Noon ET. It will answer 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. On the schedule for today's show are the following questions: Can I use force to prevent identity theft? Can T-shirts with spicy statements be used against me in court? Where on LOSD website does it tell me where my concealed carry permit is lawful? Is pointing a gun at someone surreptitiously (without them knowing) a crime? How can I best document the specialized knowledge I acquire from LOSD? Is there any quantitative document of how reaction time affects self-defense? Does LOSD comment on Second Amendment legislation/litigation? Well-known self-defense instructor advocates explaining your use-of-force to police: Good idea? Where can I find your self-defense webinar for BJJ students? Considerations in keeping handgun with suppressor locked in my car? Today's show will start by generally live streaming to YouTube, Rumble, Twitter (X), and our LOSD Members dashboard, as usual--but the public stream will only describe the bullet points above, to let people know generally what we'll be covering in the substantive portion of the show. That substantive portion of the show will be for Law of Self Defense Members ONLY--either Platinum or Standard members, and will continue to be live streamed on the Member dashboard--the live streams on YouTube, Rumble, and X will end prior to the start of the show where the questions posed are answered. Not Yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? It's only 99 CENTS! Get a two-week trial Law of Self Defense Membership for ONLY 99 CENTS at https://lawofselfdefense.com/trial Stay a member after the two week trial, and it's still dirt cheap, only about 30 cents a day, less than $10 a month! 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. Join us LIVE at Noon ET today to discuss! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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? Join me LIVE at NOON ET today to discuss! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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. Enjoy the show! LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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! Jonathan Lewis, Jr. Family Go-Fund-Me https://www.gofundme.com/f/jonathanlewisjr #jonathanlewisjr #jonathanlewis LEARN THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook You have a GUN so you're hard to KILL--know the LAW so you're hard to CONVICT. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook You have a GUN so you're hard to KILL--know the LAW so you're hard to CONVICT. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook You have a GUN so you're hard to KILL--know the LAW so you're hard to CONVICT. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook You have a GUN so you're hard to KILL--know the LAW so you're hard to CONVICT. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook You have a GUN so you're hard to KILL--know the LAW so you're hard to CONVICT. https://lawofselfdefense.com/ 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 LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE TODAY! 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! Get your copy for FREE here: lawofselfdefense.com/freebook 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.