Welcome everyone! I’m Attorney Andrew Branca, for Law of Self Defense, and I have some very exciting news for all of you in the Law of Self Defense community.
!–more–>
Tonight, Tuesday, April 27, I will be guesting on the Tim Pool IRL Show on YouTube. If you’re not familiar with Tim Pool generally, or this show specifically, you really ought to be. Tim is an independent journalist who brings a remarkably open-minded perspective to the societally-important stories that he covers.
And that approach to covering such stories has paid off, with Tim’s various YouTube shows having collectively received over a billion views—that’s not a typo, folks, OVER A BILLION—he has well over a million actual subscribers to his shows generally.
Now, it appears that Tim has several distinct shows, and I believe the one I’m on is called “Tim Pool IRL.” These shows are generally in excess of two hours in length, so that will give us plenty of time to dive into the just-completed Derek Chauvin trial, perhaps other past high-profile use-of-force cases, as well as upcoming cases such as the trial over the Ahmaud Arbery killing, the McCloskey brandishing in St. Louis, and of course the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
I believe his production practice is to air the show live, in real-time, as it’s being conducted, and then to make that recording of the show available for some short time afterwards, all at the YouTube channel you can access by clicking the image or link below:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/pool
Also, if you do join us for my guest appearance on Tim’s show, I’ll also be making available a very special opportunity for any and all of you to become genuine masters of self-defense law, so you’ll want to be prepared to take advantage of that, as well.
OK, folks, I hope to see a bunch of you join us for tonight’s show!
Until then:
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
http://lawofselfdefense.com/platinum
[PLATINUM IMAGE]
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.
I just read last week where the McCloskeys have filed a motion to quash the indictment on the grounds of something to the effect of prosecutorial misconduct.
I listened to the podcast. I noticed that Tim was trying to say that New Jersey doesn’t have castle doctrine but I noticed you didn’t correct him on that point. Just trying to be nice?
Correct. Every state has some flavor of Castle Doctrine, including New Jersey. But I don’t want to turn the interview into a mini-course on New Jersey use-of-force law. If Tim’s comment wasn’t just an aside, but part of an actual case were were discussing, I’d definitely clarify the law, but correcting every side comment would just bog down the entire show.
That guy is very “young”. I found him a bit irritating and he could not put his political agenda aside long enough to get the most out Mr Branca’s expertise.
Raging about gutless politicians is right up there with raging about the weather.
I think Mr Branca and other lawyers are alarmed at the amount of rot we are seeing in our “legal system”. This is a very important topic of discussion and I am glad he got that into the discussion.
Chauvin regardless of his casual brutality being put on display (what was thinking? all he had to do was get up and roll Floyd onto his side when he stopped fighting. Floyd would likely have died anyway but Chauvin would not have been as easily seen as a direct cause.)
Chauvin is the one being thrown into the volcano as an obvious sacrifice (scapegoat in Girardian sense) to attempt to reconcile the police establishment to the BLM crowd.
It will not work and severely damages foundational legal principles. We shall see if the appellate system has the nerve to control prosecutorial misconduct allowed by an intimidated judge.
The deeper question is can any high profile case in this society find an unbiased jury? It looks to me like the answer my be no. Mr Branca brought this up very eloquently in the interview, but the host did not have the intellectual horsepower to pursue it.
Are we just going to resign ourselves to unfair show type trials? “Well, I cannot find a place to get an unbiased jury, so for the sake of expediency we will just use this biased jury and process to condemn you.” Off with his head!!!!
What a sad mess. While there is room for reasonable disagreement about Chauvin’s guilt: there is absolutely no reasonable doubt about the corruption of the legal process.
If there is room for reasonable disagreement about Chauvin’s guilt, then the prosecution failed to prove Chauvin’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree. I think that if when GF stopped fighting if DC had just moved his knees off him and rolled him on his side he would have died anyway. The process that killed him was already in motion most likely. But as a creature operating in an ecosystem not of own creation, I would recommend everyone, for their own good, to make certain you are at least aware of how your actions are being perceived when recorded. We have a case in Cali where the police acted very differently under similar circumstances. The dead guy’s family is claiming equivalence; lets see if they get any traction for their shot at millions of dollars.
We can comment on the general level of idiocy in this society all day, be completely right; and yet those very idiots will sitting on the jury to judge us in the vent we use force on someone for what we perceive as a legitimate reason. And as we are finding out, what the law and the fact say becomes irrelevant. We must have a plausible counter narrative. Even some perfunctory words and gestures out of Chauvin may have been decisive in the outcome.
“Hey man, stop fighting us, we have medical help on the way. We are not trying to hurt you.” Obviously move to take weight off when he stops fighting. Floyd dies anyway, but you have a video of a drug overdose.
Those body cams allow the officer to essentially testify without going on the stand. Chauvin can testify on camera during the episode in a manner that cannot be cross examined and cannot be kept out of court.
Cops are actors on a movie set now, they need to realize that and hit their marks and remember their lines.
As always Andrew, I found your comments highly informative and eye opening on several occasions. I hope you do more media appearances like this. Thank you.
Mr Branca made another point that cannot be overemphasized. When you move toward a problem instead of away from it you are going to be judged by a very different standard. This was in the context of his discussion of the Rittenhouse case. We have a case in StL where a neighbor man got involved in a domestic, shot the violent boyfriend after the baby daddy retrieved an AK from his car and is now charged with murder 2. Shooter is white victim is black–He will be convicted and go to prison for a long time. He was acting like he was a cop; claimed to be protecting her and she is now the main witness against him.
Sheepdogging may be the moral high ground, I don’t know, but it sure comes with pretty serious risks–like dying in a gun fight and spending the rest of one’s life in a cage.
That poor guy looks like he could be convicted on looks alone. I wonder just how big a factor the looks of a defendant play in convicting him.
Agree. He is toast. This is a classic case that Mr Branca has mentioned in his presentations. He thought he was “defending” her. She turned around and became the prime witness against him. He claimed boyfriend was choking her, she denies it. He left scene to get gun an came back. Took cover and shot boyfriend when he pulled AK out of car. Of course the narrative is BF retrieved AK to defend himself against racist old white guy who was white knighting. That could all be true, but screwed him himself by getting involved. As Mr Branca has pointed out, he came back to the fight armed. Even if the other then dr3w the weapon, the water is too muddy given extraneous circumstances.
In a defense of others situation, going to get your arms and returning shouldn’t be a problem. The problem will be if he was the first to threaten the use of deadly force, which can be done by the unlawful display of a firearm in a threatening manner, or, if you are armed, by simply verbally threatening the use of arms on the present occasion.
I agree. I think of that guy that intervened in the TX church massacre. The one who went and got the rifle when he saw he needed it. And the guy who used the big revolver to shoot the rifle shooting nutjob at the TX camper park who was shooting at a cop.
Those cases, where you an obviously criminal active shooter are example where there is little ambiguity or vagueness in the situation. Other situations are when you could be absolutely certain that you are intervening in a violent predatory attack. Domestics???