Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show: July 29, 2021

Welcome to this episode of our ONLY open-access content, our weekly News/Q&A Show. A transcript of the show is available at the Law of Self Defense Blog (, with links to all relevant content mentioned.

In today’s News/Q&A Show for July 29, 2021 we touched on a broad range of questions submitted for the show, as well as questions submitted live, including:



  • Can you discuss Castle Doctrine, and its limitations?
  • Defense of unoccupied car versus defense of occupied car?
  • Use of force against verbal threats based on race-hate?
  • Use of force against mob where unlawful aggressors mixed with lawful protestors?

NOTE: A commenter on today’s show asked for reasons why I recommend CCW Safe over other competitors offering purportedly similar services.  I’ve written extensively on this topic, and will link to a series of posts that cover this.  Most of these posts are perhaps more arguably characterized as reasons I do NOT recommend USCCA, the primary major competitor to CCW Safe, but I believe I touch upon most other major competitors, as well:

Be sure to mark your calendar to never miss a News/Q&A Show–they air LIVE every Thursday, at 4PM ET of the Law of Self Defense Members Dashboard, our Facebook page, and video playback recordings are available on each of those platforms as well as on our YouTube channel.

Also, be aware that we are now making available the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show as an independent and FREE weekly podcast available on Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify, Pandora, iHeart, Stitcher, and many more podcast services. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RECOMMEND TO FRIENDS & FAMILY! Help us grow the Law of Self Defense Community!

Finally, I’d like to offer you a FREE copy of our best-selling book, “The Law of Self Defense: Principles”.  This is a PRINT HARD COPY, not a PDF book. We cover the normal cost of the book, which is $24.95, and ask only that you cover the S&H of $8.95. You can get your own FREE copy and learn how to make yourself HARD TO CONVICT here:  “The Law of Self Defense: Principles”.


You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


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.

7 thoughts on “Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show: July 29, 2021”

  1. Andrew in that first video with the fist fight/ robbery; if the victim was aware that it was a robbery from the beginning (such as the robber demanded the victims wallet), couldn’t deadly force be justified based on defense against a forcible felony? In CA the justifiable homicide law includes defense against a forcible felony.

    1. Attorney Andrew Branca

      In jurisdictions that allow deadly force against a forcible felony, that would be a reasonable justification. Not all states do. Back in the late 1980s or 1990s the state of Connecticut, for example, affirmed the conviction of a man who used deadly force when subject to a robbery on the grounds that he was defending mere property–if only he’d given the property up, etc.

        1. I found this from case state v ceballos 1974
          [3] By its terms subdivision 1 of Penal Code section 197 appears to [12 Cal.3d 478] permit killing to prevent any “felony,” but in view of the large number of felonies today and the inclusion of many that do not involve a danger of serious bodily harm, a literal reading of the section is undesirable. (See 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) p. 159; Justification for the Use of Force in Criminal Law, 13 Stan.L.Rev. 566, 578-579.) People v. Jones, 191 Cal. App.2d 478, 481 [12 Cal.Rptr. 777], in rejecting the defendant’s theory that her husband was about to commit the felony of beating her (Pen. Code, § 273d) and that therefore her killing him to prevent him from doing so was justifiable, stated that Penal Code section 197 “does no more than codify the common law and should be read in the light of it.” Jones read into section 197, subdivision 1, the limitation that the felony be “‘some atrocious crime attempted to be committed by force.'” Jones (at p. 482) further stated, “The punishment provided by a statute is not necessarily an adequate test as to whether life may be taken for in some situations it is too artificial and unrealistic. We must look further into the character of the crime, and the manner of its perpetration (see Storey v. State [71 Ala. 329]). When these do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm, as they could not if defendant apprehended only a misdemeanor assault, there is no cause for the exaction of a human life.” (Italics added; see also Harper and James, The Law of Torts (1956) pp. 1441-1442, fn. 38; but see 1 Bishop’s Criminal Law (9th ed.) p. 608.)
          My reading into this case is that if someone is a victim of a forcible felony they would have to go by the traditional decision making for self defense which are the 5 elements. Just because a forcible felony is occurring in itself is not justification for deadly force as it still has to meet the requirement of proportionality. So my guess is that at least in California if someone is a victim of a strong arm robbery from an assailant the same size as them, then likely deadly force would not be proportional or legal.

          1. Blackstone, in explaining the justified homicide in prevention of crime (which could also be an act of self defense if it were a crime against the person), said that the English law would not suffer a homicide to be committed in prevention of a crime unless the crime, if accomplished, would be punished by homicide. At the time Blackston declared this to be the common law of England he estimated that there were 160 felonies that were capital (punished with the mandatory death sentence).

            Blackston also said that the “excusable homicide in self defense” (not justified, but excusable) occurred in the course of an affray when the non-aggressor killed the aggressor out of necissity to prevent an “assault or the like.”

            Blackstone said a justified homicide entitled a defendant to an accquital “with commendation” from the court for his great public service in ridding society of a violent felon. Blackstone also said an excusable homicide in self defense (which was different than a justified homicide in self defense) entitled a defendant to an accquital, but the defendant was not entitled to a commendation from the court because the defendant bore some degree of responsibility for creating the situation which resulted in the necissity for him to have to kill the unlawful physical aggressor to protect himself from an assault or the like.

          2. Several years ago, I read through Blackstone’s Commentaries. The typesetting drove me nuts (mostly because of the elongated S’s that look like f’s) but I really appreciated the insight it provided in American and general Commonwealth law!

            My only regret is that I read the original 4-volume edition, and not the American-annotated 5-volume one (I believe it was Tucker, if I remember, who put that together). It was a challenge to get through the original Commentary, and I’m not sure if I’ll do it more than once in my lifetime ….

  2. The English Castle Doctrin dates back as far as English records will reach, all the way back to the middle ages. The Castle Doctrin was the doctrine that held that an attack on the castle walls was an attack on the occupants of the castle. What the Castle Doctrine did was provide an exception to the English rule of law that held that a homicide was not justified or excusable in protection of property.

    The English Castle Doctrine was adopted by statute in Missouri in 1825. That statute is still in force and effect, but the codification of the English Castle Doctrine codified at RSMO 563.036 was repealed in 2007. I don’t know what effect the repeal of the codifiction of the law has on the law, but I do know the Supreme Court approved standard castle doctrine jury instructon is no longer a standard jury instruction.

Leave a Comment