LawofSelfDefense

Join Attorney Andrew F. Branca as he concludes his minute-by-minute live legal analysis and commentary of the murder trial of Nicolae Mui over the stabbings on the Apple River in Wisconsin. On July 30, 2022, Wisconsin-man Nicolae Miu got into a confrontation with several other tubers on the Apple river. He would end up stabbing five people, killing one--17-year-old Isaac Shuman. Miu is now charged with murder, and his trial began this past Monday. He is raising the legal defense of self-defense. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET! BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #NicolaeMiu #MurderTrial #Analysis #TrueCrime #Justice #CourtroomDrama #LegalAnalysis #LiveStream #CrimeScene #Investigation #CriminalJustice #Courtroom #Evidence #TrialAnalysis #CrimeStory #JusticeSystem #LawAndOrder #CrimeSceneInvestigation #CrimeAnalysis #TrialCoverage

Today's Show: In today's show we cover the Courtney Clenney Arthur hearing testimony of the lead investigator, Detective Brecino. Specifically, we cover Brecino's cross-examination by Defense Counsel Frank Prieto. Overview: This week we're covering "OnlyFans Killer" Courtney Clenney, who on April 3, 2022 killed her boyfriend Christian Obumseli with a knife in their Miami apartment. Obumseli suffered a single knife wound to the chest. Clenney would tell investigators that the much larger and heavier Obumseli was a domestic abuser, and had pinned her to the wall by her throat and thrown her to the ground. She somehow managed to escape, move 10 feet away, grab a small kitchen knife, and toss it in his direction. That knife managed to penetrate Obumseli's chest, severing carotid arteries, and quickly leading to his death from massive blood loss. Although investigators initially perceived the event as an act of self-defense, they quickly began to suspect otherwise. Much evidence emerged that Clenney had been a violent abuser in the relationship--indeed, it seemed that she had previously stabbed Obumseli on an earlier occasion, simply because she was angry that he had stayed late to watch the overtime of a football game. There also emerged video of Clenney attacking Obumseli with her fists in an elevator. Ultimately Clenney was charged with second degree malice murder by Florida prosecutors, and she is in jail awaiting trial on that charge today. In late 2022 Clenney sought pre-trial release, offering to stay under house arrest with her parents in Texas. Florida prosecutors disagreed, and a motion was filed for an Arthur hearing. This is a Florida-specific hearing that is essentially a mini-trial, in which prosecutors have to prove by a strong presumption that the defendant is likely to be convicted at trial (Phase 1) as well as that the defendant is a flight risk if released (Phase 2). The Arthur hearing was held on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, and Thursday, November 17, 2022, with key testimony primarily from the lead investigator and the medical examiner on those two days, respectively. Spoiler: On December 8, 2022, the hearing judge would ultimately deny pre-trial release. Nevertheless, the testimony of these witnesses provides us with insight into how the evidence is likely to be presented at the actual trial. Over the next few Law of Self Defense shows I will be working our way through those two days of Arthur hearings and testimony. [fl_builder_insert_layout id=1244322] 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. No transcript for today's show, due to it's length. #InvestigatorTestifies #CourtneyClenney #ArthurHearing #HearingRecap #CrimeNews #LegalCase #CourtroomDrama #TrueCrime #Investigation #WitnessTestimony #JusticeSystem #CourtroomUpdate #CrimeInvestigation #LegalProcedures #HearingTestimony #CourtCaseUpdate #CriminalJustice #LegalTestimony #CourtroomRevelation #CourtroomDrama #CrimeSceneInvestigation

Today's Show: In today's show we cover the Courtney Clenney Arthur hearing testimony of the lead investigator, Detective Brecino. Specifically, we cover Brecino's direct examination by Assistant State's Attorney Khalil Quinan. Overview: This week we're covering "OnlyFans Killer" Courtney Clenney, who on April 3, 2022 killed her boyfriend Christian Obumseli with a knife in their Miami apartment. Obumseli suffered a single knife wound to the chest. Clenney would tell investigators that the much larger and heavier Obumseli was a domestic abuser, and had pinned her to the wall by her throat and thrown her to the ground. She somehow managed to escape, move 10 feet away, grab a small kitchen knife, and toss it in his direction. That knife managed to penetrate Obumseli's chest, severing carotid arteries, and quickly leading to his death from massive blood loss. Although investigators initially perceived the event as an act of self-defense, they quickly began to suspect otherwise. Much evidence emerged that Clenney had been a violent abuser in the relationship--indeed, it seemed that she had previously stabbed Obumseli on an earlier occasion, simply because she was angry that he had stayed late to watch the overtime of a football game. There also emerged video of Clenney attacking Obumseli with her fists in an elevator. Ultimately Clenney was charged with second degree malice murder by Florida prosecutors, and she is in jail awaiting trial on that charge today. In late 2022 Clenney sought pre-trial release, offering to stay under house arrest with her parents in Texas. Florida prosecutors disagreed, and a motion was filed for an Arthur hearing. This is a Florida-specific hearing that is essentially a mini-trial, in which prosecutors have to prove by a strong presumption that the defendant is likely to be convicted at trial (Phase 1) as well as that the defendant is a flight risk if released (Phase 2). The Arthur hearing was held on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, and Thursday, November 17, 2022, with key testimony primarily from the lead investigator and the medical examiner on those two days, respectively. Spoiler: On December 8, 2022, the hearing judge would ultimately deny pre-trial release. Nevertheless, the testimony of these witnesses provides us with insight into how the evidence is likely to be presented at the actual trial. Over the next few Law of Self Defense shows I will be working our way through those two days of Arthur hearings and testimony. BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced [fl_builder_insert_layout id=1244322] 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. No transcript for today's show, due to it's length. #InvestigatorTestifies #CourtneyClenney #ArthurHearing #HearingRecap #CrimeNews #LegalCase #CourtroomDrama #TrueCrime #Investigation #WitnessTestimony #JusticeSystem #CourtroomUpdate #CrimeInvestigation #LegalProcedures #HearingTestimony #CourtCaseUpdate #CriminalJustice #LegalTestimony #CourtroomRevelation #CourtroomDrama #CrimeSceneInvestigation

In this video, we explore the 1939 US Supreme Court decision in US v. Miller, which was the Court's first substantive ruling on the Second Amendment. The case involved Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two individuals with criminal histories, who never appeared in court to argue their side against the Federal government. The decision ultimately ruled that the Second Amendment only protected firearms that were useful to a militia. Fast forward to today, where gun control groups argue the opposite - that the Second Amendment protects only non-military style firearms. This contrast with modern Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence, such as the landmark cases of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen, makes US v. Miller a little-known but important decision in understanding the evolution of gun rights in America. Learn more about this historic case and its implications in this video. Like, share, and subscribe for more legal history content on our channel! BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #SecondAmendment #USvMiller #SupremeCourt #GunRights #ConstitutionalLaw #GunControl #GunLaws #Firearms #LegalHistory #SCOTUS #BillOfRights #2A #USHistory #LegalPrecedent #GunOwnership #RightToBearArms #CourtCase #LegalDecisions #AmericanHistory #LawStudents

Today's show is Part 2 of 2 of our reading of the law review article "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," buy attorney and legal scholar Brian L. Frye. In 1939, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in US v. Miller, shaping the interpretation of the Second Amendment. This case ruled that the Amendment only protected firearms useful to a militia, sparking debates that continue to this day. Ironically enough, contemporary gun control groups argue the opposite viewpoint, claiming that the Second Amendment only safeguards weapons that are not designed for war. Interestingly, the defendants in US v. Miller, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, never presented their arguments in court, leaving many questions unanswered. Despite the lack of opposition, this case is significant as the Supreme Court's first substantial ruling on the Second Amendment. It sheds light on the historical context surrounding gun control and highlights the potential manipulation behind the scenes. In fact, US v. Miller may have been orchestrated as a test case by supporters of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, aiming to pass gun control legislation without constitutional hindrances. This possibility is well-described in the law review article, "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," buy attorney and legal scholar Brian L. Frye, and published in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty in 2008 -- ironically enough, the same year in which the Supreme Court decided their second substantive Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (US Supreme Court 2008). Understanding the nuances of this case is essential in comprehending the ongoing debate over gun rights in America. Dive into the untold story of US v. Miller and uncover the complexities surrounding this pivotal moment in legal history. BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #SecondAmendment #USvMiller #SupremeCourt #GunRights #ConstitutionalLaw #GunControl #GunLaws #Firearms #LegalHistory #SCOTUS #BillOfRights #2A #USHistory #LegalPrecedent #GunOwnership #RightToBearArms #CourtCase #LegalDecisions #AmericanHistory #LawStudents

Today's show is Part 1 of 2 of our reading of the law review article "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," buy attorney and legal scholar Brian L. Frye. In 1939, the US Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in US v. Miller, shaping the interpretation of the Second Amendment. This case ruled that the Amendment only protected firearms useful to a militia, sparking debates that continue to this day. Ironically enough, contemporary gun control groups argue the opposite viewpoint, claiming that the Second Amendment only safeguards weapons that are not designed for war. Interestingly, the defendants in US v. Miller, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, never presented their arguments in court, leaving many questions unanswered. Despite the lack of opposition, this case is significant as the Supreme Court's first substantial ruling on the Second Amendment. It sheds light on the historical context surrounding gun control and highlights the potential manipulation behind the scenes. In fact, US v. Miller may have been orchestrated as a test case by supporters of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, aiming to pass gun control legislation without constitutional hindrances. This possibility is well-described in the law review article, "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," buy attorney and legal scholar Brian L. Frye, and published in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty in 2008 -- ironically enough, the same year in which the Supreme Court decided their second substantive Second Amendment case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (US Supreme Court 2008). Understanding the nuances of this case is essential in comprehending the ongoing debate over gun rights in America. Dive into the untold story of US v. Miller and uncover the complexities surrounding this pivotal moment in legal history. BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #SecondAmendment #USvMiller #SupremeCourt #GunRights #ConstitutionalLaw #GunControl #GunLaws #Firearms #LegalHistory #SCOTUS #BillOfRights #2A #USHistory #LegalPrecedent #GunOwnership #RightToBearArms #CourtCase #LegalDecisions #AmericanHistory #LawStudents

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States. Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public. Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 4 of 4, Andrew reads the final dissenting opinion. Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America. Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history. Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary. Let's uncover the truth behind the law together! BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States. Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public. Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 3 of 4, Andrew reads the first two of the three dissenting opinions. Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America. Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history. Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary. Let's uncover the truth behind the law together! BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States. Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public. Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 2 of 4 Andrew completes the second-half of the majority opinion. Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America. Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history. Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary. Let's uncover the truth behind the law together! BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

In this episode, we delve into the landmark 1966 US Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, which gave rise to the famous "Miranda rights" that are now a staple of police procedures in the United States. Surprisingly, this crucial decision was a close 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, a fact that is not widely known to the public. Join Attorney Andrew Branca as he breaks down the majority opinion and the three powerful dissents in the Miranda v. Arizona case. In this Part 1 of 4, we read the first half of the majority opinion. Gain a deeper understanding of the legal reasoning behind this historic decision and discover the nuances that shaped the landscape of criminal justice in America. Don't miss out on this fascinating exploration of one of the most pivotal Supreme Court rulings in US history. Subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal analysis and stay tuned for future episodes where we decode complex legal cases and provide expert commentary. Let's uncover the truth behind the law together! BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #MirandaVArizona #SupremeCourt #LegalAnalysis #ConstitutionalLaw #5 #FourthAmendment #DueProcess #CriminalProcedure #CivilRights #LawStudents #LegalScholars #LandmarkCase #MirandaRights #Constitution #JusticeSystem #USLaw #LegalHistory #BillOfRights #LegalEducation #CriminalJustice

Today we discuss the troubling reporting of a road-rage incident in which one woman shot both another woman and that other woman’s daughter—both shooting victims survived. The media has been reporting on this event with headlines like this: “No charges for woman who wounded mother, daughter.” The local police department did request from prosecutors an arrest warrant for the shooter. Yet no such warrant was granted. Why not? Surely an out-of-control driver who puts bullets into a mother and daughter simply MUST be held legally accountable, no? Buried deep in the media reporting is the truth of the matter, however—that the woman who fired the shots was the victim of a deadly force attack by that mother and daughter. It was the mother and daughter who were the unlawful aggressors, and the woman who shot was simply lawfully defending herself. Join me as I share details of this successful act of self-defense, and note how the deceitful media increases the legal risks for lawful defenders. BECOME A LAW OF SELF DEFENSE EXPERT IN ONE DAY! Twice a year Attorney Andrew Branca hosts a LIVE full-day Law of Self Defense Advanced Webinar--and one of those rare opportunities is coming up on Saturday, April 20, 2024. Learn how to be HARD TO CONVICT if you're ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, IN A SINGLE DAY. Learn how the criminal justice system perceives and evaluates claims of self-defense, learn the five elements of any self-defense claim, learn defense of others and property, learn how to interact with the police in the aftermath of a use-of-force event, and much, MUCH more. And for a brief time you can SAVE UP TO 50% by registering during the early discount period. Click here NOW to learn more: https://lawofselfdefense.com/advanced #media #fakenews #journalism #selfdefense #truth #socialmedia #news #mediaethics #falsehoods #coverup #twistingthetruth #mediabias #deceitfulmedia #defensecases #mediacontrol #truthmatters #propaganda #falseinformation #mediamanipulation #distortedtruths #self-defense #selfdefense

A police officer dumped a full mag into a police cruiser with a handcuffed suspect inside, believing he'd just been shot by that suspect's suppressed weapon. A fellow officer then joined in, firing more shots at the cruiser. The problem: There was no suppressed weapon, or any weapon at all, nor any evidence of any impact to the officer. There was merely an acorn that fell onto the cruiser's roof. That was triggered the first officer to fire. Self-defense doesn't require perfect decision-making, it merely requires REASONABLE decision-making. But does the first officers' use of force qualify as reasonable? What about the second officer's use of force? Well, we have VIDEO of the shooting, AND the official department report of the event. Join me LIVE at NOON ET as we review the video, read through the report, and evaluate the legal dynamics of this nut shot. 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. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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. #PanicUnleashed #CopsMisfire #StartlingPistolMisfire #YouTubeVideo #TopRanking #ViralContent #LawEnforcement #PoliceIncident #AccidentalFirearmDischarge #SafetyMatters #TrainingMistake #WeaponSafety #CriticalMoments #UnfortunateAccident #FirearmMisuse #LawEnforcementFail #RealLifeIncident #CautionaryTale #PublicSafetyAwareness #TrainingMishap

US Federal trial judge Kathryn Mizelle, presiding in Florida, has just ordered that defendant Emmanuel Ayala cannot be tried for the crime of unlawfully possessing a firearm in a post office because the law against such possession is itself is an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The judge's order is very long--53 pages!--and I've only had a chance to read about 10% of it so far. That 10% is of sufficient high legal and educational value, however, that in this lengthy Law of Self Defense show we'll be working our way through the entire order. Note that this is a TRIAL-level court order in a PARTICULAR case, not an appellate court decision, and does not have precedential authority over other cases, other judges, or other courts. Join me LIVE at NOON ET on Tuesday, Jan. 30 to cover this very interesting and well-argued order! 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. If you are in need of legal advice you should retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Shocking absolutely no one, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) has issued a press statement defending Alec Baldwin's apparent manslaughter of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the movie set of low-budget western "Rust," after the actor was again indicted for manslaughter last Friday. (See our show on that news here: https://youtu.be/MILXfooJESE) This statement defending #AlecBaldwin came as no surprise because, fter all, SAG had issued a similar defense of the actor after his first manslaughter indictment, January 2023 (later dismissed). But is this public statement consistent with SAG's own firearms safety guidelines, issued to all SAG members, including Alec Baldwin? And what are the legal implications for all this for the beleaguered Baldwin, and for the prosecutors pursuing him? 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. If you are in need of legal advice you should retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 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.

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.

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 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.