Hey folks,
I’m Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense, probably most familiar to many of thousands of you through my daily coverage of the murder trial of Derek Chauvin, over the in-custody death of George Floyd.
I trust you’ve found that coverage to be informative and enjoyable, and perhaps a little bit different than the mainstream media coverage of the same trial. Presumably that’s the case, or you wouldn’t still be watching these videos, reading my blog posts, or listening to our podcast!
Covering trials at this level of intensity, however, while it’s something we do for many high-profile cases such as the Chauvin trial, isn’t our normal day-to-day work.
Rather, the core of our business is to provide normal, law-abiding folks just like you with the information you need to make better informed, more confident, more legally-sound, and more decisive decisions in defending yourself, your family, and your property against criminal predation.
When you use force, or even threaten to use force, against another person, you’re almost certainly doing so in the genuine, good faith belief that you’re acting lawfully. But are you sure? Can you afford to be wrong?
It’s been my experience that if a person has learned their self-defense law from the internet, from gun magazines, from a CCW class, or even from the retired cop neighbor down the street, much of what they’ve learned is simply wrong, and a good chunk of it is outright dangerous.
Because at the end of the day, the police, prosecutors, judges, and juries don’t care at all about what you thought your conduct was consistent with the law—they only care if your conduct actually was consistent with the law. And if it wasn’t, it’s not hard at all to find yourself looking at a 10- or 20-year felony sentence, despite the best of intentions.
Don’t be that person, shocked, calling my office for help, only to have me tell you that there’s not too much I can do at that point. I’m a pretty good lawyer, but I’m stuck with the facts you give me. If you actually broke the rules, well—you broke the rules.
The good news is you don’t have to be that person. Self-defense law isn’t really rocket science, and all most people need is a solid and reliable source for what the law is, and to have the legalese translated into plain English so that the knowledge is actionable for them in that moment of crisis.
Many of you own a gun, so that you’re hard to kill, right? Certainly, that’s why I do. Well, you also owe it to yourself to know the law, so that you’re hard to convict.
And that’s where we come in at Law of Self Defense. Through our books, our video courses (both online and DVD), our occasional public blogging and podcasting, and mostly through our near-daily plain English self-defense law content for our Law of Self Defense Membership, we do our very best to our community be hard to kill both and hard to convict.
One part of all that is to keep our members updated on any important changes in self-defense law, and a recent example of this updating is what prompted me to share today’s Law of Self Defense content with all of you.
Specifically, on April 6, 2021 Ohio became the 38th “Stand-Your-Ground” state in the US, and we just pushed out updated educational materials on that important law change to our Law of Self Defense Members.
Now, normally, this is exactly the kind of content that would go out only to our members, but as we transition out of coverage of the Chauvin trial, which we’ve deliberately left open-access to everyone, and back to our normal practice of limiting our content access to the members who make our work possible, I wanted to take this opportunity to show you some of our more usual work for our members.
Today I’d like to share with you that update to Ohio law as we pushed it out to our members, in video and audio form.
Although this update is, of course, specific to Ohio, I’m hoping it will provide a better sense of how we routinely serve our members, than our somewhat unusual coverage of the Chauvin trial might suggest.
Also, although this update is for Ohio law, we do have state-specific courses available for all 50 states, in both DVD and online streamed format, that provide in-depth, legally-sound, but translated into plain English guidance on the self-defense law of each and every state—so, no matter what state you’re from, we’ve got you covered.
In fact, considering the many thousands of you who just recently became aware of us through our coverage of the Chauvin trial, we’ve put together a very special offer for all of you watching or listening to or reading this. You can get the DVD or online streamed Law of Self Defense Advanced State-Specific Course for your state at up to 60% off the usual price—that’s a savings of almost $200!
In fact, considering the many thousands of you who just recently became aware of us through our coverage of the Chauvin trial, we’ve put together a very special offer for all of you watching or listening to or reading this. You can get the DVD or online streamed Law of Self Defense Advanced State-Specific Course for your state at up to 60% off the usual price—that’s a savings of almost $200!
If you’re wondering if there’s a catch, the answer is yes—we’re going to leave this offer up only until we have a verdict, or a mistrial, in the Chauvin trial. Once either a verdict is rendered or a mistrial announced, this opportunity will be gone, gone, gone.
In the meantime, here’s that Ohio update on becoming a stand-your-ground state, and all the legal implications of that change in statutes, for your viewing or listening enjoyment:
OK, folks, that’s all I have for now. Be sure to join me again on Monday morning for our live coverage of the Chauvin trial, a morning that will include closing arguments by both the state and the defense (and surely a follow-on rebuttal closing by the state), and the reading of the final jury instructions to the jury.
And don’t forget, I urge you to take a look at this fantastic offer for the Law of Self Defense Advanced State-specific Course for your state, right NOW, by pointing your browser to lawofselfdefense.com/state, and saving almost $200 on this invaluable knowledge and expertise. Once we have a verdict in the Chauvin trial, this offer will be gone.
Until then, I’ll just urge you once again:
Remember
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Law of Self Defense Platinum Protection Program
IMPORTANT: We encourage civil and reasoned debate among Members in the comments. That said, comments reflect the opinion (legal or otherwise) of those who authored them only, and no comment should be assumed to reflect the opinion of, or be assumed to be shared by, Attorney Andrew F. Branca, except those authored by Attorney Branca. Law of Self Defense LLC does not systemically moderate comments for legal correctness, and we suggest that all comments be viewed with an appropriately critical eye and a grain of salt.
Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.
Law of Self Defense © 2021
All rights reserved.
The right to stand your ground and the duty to retreat under the historic English law are the most misunderstood elements of the two English laws of self defense: the English law of justified use of force in prevention of crime and the English law of excusable use of deadly force in self defense. Some states really confused the English law when they attempted to codify it and there wasn’t anyone ever more confused about the law of self defense than Judge Isaac Parker. The only American judge who ever determined the appeals from his own erroneous decisions.
It would be nice if you would review chapter 14 of book 4 of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England and explain the right to stand your ground, the conditional duty to retreat, and the absolute duty to retreat under the historic English law, and how the American myth of a general duty to retreat came about in some states, and still exists in some states despite the United States Supreme Court having declared long ago that there is no duty in the United States to retreat before defending yourself or another from an unprovoked use of unlawful force.
I understand your point, and it has merit. But there’s a difference between how the law reasonably appears understood logically, and how it is applied in actual courts.
I can assure you that people are convicted and sentenced to multi-decade prison sentences largely based on failure to retreat, whatever the legal theory and history suggests should happen.
The cases I work involve real people, today, with judges, today, and statutes written and applied, today.
You can sit as an observer in American court rooms for a very, very, very long time, and never hear Blackstone mentioned once.
That’s just the way it is.
I understand what you are saying about the law of the case being effectively what the trial judge says it is, but here in Missouri when you get to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court is bound by the constitutions and by the statutes, and in particular by the state statute that makes the English law the rule of law and decision in the Missouri courts. The Supreme Court will overturn lower court decisions and prior Supreme Court decisions that are repugnant to the constitutions, the statutes, and/or to the English Law. You don’t have to go back over a few years to find the Supreme Court citing Blackstone.
Understanding what the English Law was that Missouri adopted it in 1825 really helps to understand what the Courts were actually saying in their opinions over the past 200 years. For instance, in 1896 the Supreme Court held that there was a duty to retreat in the Dewitt case, but six years later the same Court, the same Justice writing the opinion, in a unanimous in banc opinion held that there was no duty to retreat and a right to stand your ground on a public street. If you don’t understand what the right to stand your ground and the duty to retreat under English law was, you might think that the cases contradict each other, but such was not the case. The cases were distinguished from each other in that the Dewitt case was a case of excusable self defense under the English Law of homicide and the Bartlett case was a case of justifiable self defense under the English law of homicide. Dewitt was not without fault whatsoever in any manner or degree in provoking the unlawful use of force against himself, whereas Bartlett was without fault whatsoever in provoking the attack, Bartlett did no more than stand his ground and use necessary force to defend himself from an unprovoked attack as the English Law gave him permission to do.
The Bartlett case is a really informative case because Bartlett was an attorney and a former prosecutor and he made no mistakes whatsoever in defending himself or in mounting his legal defense in court. Bartlett brought himself within the English Law of justified homicide and also brought himself within the English Law of excusable homicide. The case covers every element of self defense, including disparity of force, and even addresses the constitutional right to stand your ground on a public street and bear arms in self defense against an unarmed man. It is my favorite self defense case because it holds that an innocent man’s constitutional rights (life, liberty, and property) need not yield to a malefactor’s constitutional right to life
I know you are busy with Chauvin but if you get a chance can you talk about Daunte Wright shooting re: excusable homicide versus involuntary manslaughter?
In reviewing my instructor program material it touches on excusable homicide but doesn’t really go into detail except to contrast it with justifiable homicide. I’m wondering what the standard for criminal negligence would be in a case like this. I’m assuming that it will be tough on the officer because of the old saying that “The deadly force of a gun is known to all.”
I guess you will be addressing jury instructions next week.
In regard to the second degree murder charge, it looks to me like fifth degree assault and third degree assault are both lesser included offenses of the second degree murder charge. It doesn’t look like either the prosecution or defense has request that the jury be instructed on lesser included offenses. In Minnesota is the court required to instructed on lesser included offenses even though the prosecution nor the defense requested such an instruction?
In regard to the third degree murder charge, I believe the prosecution failed to meet its burden of going forward with evidence that the defendant engaged in an act that was eminently dangerous to others: therefore, Chauvin is entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty on that charge. The recent Noor case does not hold that the act does not have to be eminently dangerous to others. The Noor case merely holds that an act THAT IS eminently dangerous to others may be directed at a specific individual. The act itself remains eminently dangerous to others even though it is directed at a specific individual. The Noor case is distinguished from this case in that in the Noor case the defendant’s act of unlawfully discharging a firearm on a public street in a densely populated area was an act that was eminently dangerous to others even though the defendant directed the act at a specific individual (bullets are an eminent danger to others and they don’t always go where you intend). In this case the act of restraining George Floyd in a prone position on the street presented no eminent danger to others. Eminently dangerous to others is a statutory element of the offense that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I haven’t considered the second degree manslaughter charge yet, but I am wondering if it includes a lesser included offense too.
Does the Law of Self-defense “Advanced” State-specific Course add to the original state-specific DVD I purchased about a year ago?