Stay ConnectedMISSION: political analysis that is exuberantly pro-America as envisioned by our Founders, pro-Constitutional order, pro-western civilization, pro-meritocracy, pro-family, and adamantly opposed to everyone and everything that undermines those values.
If those are your values, as well, hit that SUBSCRIBE button and join the Law of Self Defense community as we defend our great nation against the many forces that wish to tear it to rubble.
Copyright: © 2021 Law of Self Defense News/Q&A
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):
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/trust
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 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/trust
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.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
