News/Q&A Show: Mar. 4, 2021

Welcome to this episode of our ONLY open-access content, our weekly News/Q&A Show. A transcript of the show is (or soon will be) available below my signature, for those who prefer to read rather than view. Also, Law of Self Defense Members can access the show in audio form in the members-only Law of Self Defense Podcast.

In today’s News/Q&A Show for March 4, 2021 we touched on a broad range of news and questions submitted for the show, as well as questions submitted live, including:

NEWS

• Governor Asa Hutchinson has signed a bill bringing a “stand your ground” law to the state of Arkansas.
• The 12 Duty-to-Retreat States That Force Innocent Victims Facing Imminent Death to Flee for Their Lives
• Victim of burglary arrested after allegedly shooting, kidnapping 16-year-old suspected burglar
• ‘I would spend the rest of my life in a 6-by-8 cell for her,’ says father accused in slaying
• DA declines murder charges in “Defense of RV” killing

Q&A

• A good thing? Self-defense insurance” programs that pay lawyers a fixed fee are good at getting you a low-cost lawyer and at plea bargaining”
• How is plain open-carry different than defensive display of a holstered gun towards an apparent aggressor?
• Ever lawful to use of deadly defensive force in the absence of a deadly force threat?

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!

http://lawofselfdefense.com/freepodcast

LEVEL 1 Core Class & State Supplement: $600 ONLY $150!

THIS WEEK ONLY, you can save 75%, a full $450, of our best-selling combination of courses, in either online streamed or DVD form–our LEVEL 1 Core Class plus the State-specific Supplement Class of your choice.

This is a world-class education in self-defense law, all translated into plain English.

After taking these courses you will know more about self-defense law then virtually any lawyer or law enforcement officer you meet, period.

And you can do it THIS WEEK ONLY while saving hundreds of dollars!

Just click the image or link below to learn more:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/showsale

A transcript of the show is available below my signature, for those who prefer to read rather than view. Also, Law of Self Defense Members can access the show in audio form in the members-only Law of Self Defense Podcast.

CCW Safe:  Our Sponsor

Now before we jump into the substance of today’s content, I do, of course, need to mention today’s sponsor, CCW Safe, a provider of legal service memberships, what many people mistakenly call self-defense insurance. They in effect promise to pay their member’s legal expenses if their member is involved in a use of force event.

And those expenses start big and get bigger, fast, folks. For example, imagine a case where you were threatened, you displayed your gun, you didn’t fire a shot didn’t hurt anybody—and now you find yourself charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, typically a 10-year felony.

If you’re charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, you’re looking at a retainer to your lead counsel on the order of $30,000 to $50,000. And that’s just for pre-trial work, folks, that’s not for going to trial. If it’s a killing case, where you’re charged with manslaughter or murder, you’re easily looking at $100,000 or $200,000 pre-trial expense, and just multiply that for the trial.

So, if you don’t have that kind of money stuffed in your mattress just in case you’re compelled to defend yourself and your family, it can be useful to have a financial partner standing behind you to make sure you have the resources you need to fight the legal battle, the way you want it fought—as if your life depended on it. Because, really, it does.  And that’s what CCW Safe offers to do.

There are several companies out there that offer similar services. I’ve looked at all of them, as you might imagine, and I found that CCW Safe is the best fit for me personally.  I’m a member of CCW Safe, my wife Emily is a member of CCW Safe.

One of the biggest reasons I favored CCW Safe over other similar offerings is that many of those others simply don’t provide the level resources you need for an adequate legal defense. If you’re looking at a “self-defense insurance” offer that caps out at $150,000 or $250,000, that’s simply not enough for a murder or manslaughter trial if you’ve killed someone in self-defense, as I’ve already discussed. In contrast, CCW Safe promises to pay what the defense costs, period, with no such cap.

And what if you lose a trial and you have to appeal. CCW Safe covers you on appeals again, with no cap. These other companies often say well, we’ll cover you up to the limit of the cap on an appeal. But of course, you’ll have spent all that money at the trial itself. So effectively, there is no coverage for an appeal.

So be aware if your plan that you’re looking at or already have has that kind of cap. I know $250,000 sounds like a lot of money, folks, and it is a lot of money, but not in the context of a criminal defense in the murder or manslaughter case. Read the fine print, folks, and understand what you’re getting—and not getting—from any such offering you’re considering.

Having said that CCW Safe is the best fit for me, whether they are the best fit for you is something only you can decide. But I do encourage you to take a look at what they have to offer by clicking the image or link below:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe

And if you do decide to become a member of CCW Safe, you can save 10% off your membership at that URL http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe, using the discount code LOSD10.

Enjoy the show!

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

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 LLC ©  2021
All rights reserved.
May not be reproduced in any form.

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome, everybody to the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show for Thursday, March 4, 2021. So happy to be here. Apologies for the delay. And it is unfortunate because we have a ton of content to cover today, I’ve got a bunch of new stories to share with you, and a bunch of really excellent questions that were sent in ahead of time, by Law of Self Defense Members, as well as the general public.

And as always, I encourage you to submit questions if you’re watching this show live. Not if you’re watching the recorded replay someplace folks on either on Facebook or YouTube or elsewhere. But if you’re watching live 4pm, Eastern Time to 5pm. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 4 2021. You can put in the comments, any questions you’d like me to consider for today’s show, I’ll do my best to get to them before we close out the show at the top of the hour.

I should also mention that this weekly Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show is the only open access content we produce each week. We produce a lot of content here at Law of Self Defense every week. But most of its for Law of Self Defense Members, we are largely a membership program.

But this one weekly show we produce an open access format for all of you to obviously get the broader world aware of what we have to offer. And hopefully get them interested in becoming a member as well. Membership is dirt cheap. And last off the fence, just a few pennies a day. I’ll come back to that and share some more details about that later during the show.

As the title of the show might suggest the Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show. We share some use of force events in the news that I think are useful for sharing some lessons, information, insight expertise on use of force law with all of you drawn from the real world involving real people and real use of force cases. That’s the news part of the show. And then the second half of the show, we engage in questions and answers on various use of force principles, doctrines, practicalities and so forth.

And for those who may be new to the show, I am Attorney Andrew Branca for Law of Self Defense. Thank you very much. And as the name may suggest, Law of Self Defense is a law practice that does nothing but use the force law, meaning defense of a person’s defense of yourself or defense of others. And defense of property both highly defensible property and personal property. We don’t have a generalized legal defense practice. We don’t do DWI, or shoplifting or anything like that. It’s use of force events only. And that’s been our focus for, well, almost pushing 30 years now, I guess. We all keep getting older, don’t we?

For the questions part of today’s show, I do encourage you to submit questions, again in the comments for the live show purposes. For future shows. If you’d like to submit a question for consideration, you can always email questions to show@lawofselfdefense.com and we’ll take them under advisement for a future show. Of course, if you’re a Platinum level Law of Self Defense member, you have your own Platinum Q&A form on your member dashboard. And those always get top priority and private response from me if that’s of interest to interview. But for the general public, email us at show@lawofselfdefense.com and we’ll put your questions on the list for consideration on a future show. I won’t be able to review those emails live. But we will take a look at them after today’s show and throughout the course of the week.

Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Podcast

I should also mention that this one show we do every week this News/Q&A Show we also make available as a free podcast. So we’re on pretty much every major podcast program you can imagine. We’re an apple podcast, Google podcast, Spotify, Spotify, Pandora, iheart, pretty much all of them. If you go to http://lawofselfdefense.com/freepodcast we have links to all of those to make it easy for you to subscribe to this weekly news and q&a podcast if that’s of interest, and I certainly hope that it would be let’s see what else we have.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/freepodcast

CCW Safe:  Our Sponsor

Now before we jump into the substance of today’s content, I do, of course, need to mention today’s sponsor, CCW Safe, a provider of legal service memberships, what many people mistakenly call self-defense insurance. They in effect promise to pay their member’s legal expenses if their member is involved in a use of force event.

And those expenses start big and get bigger, fast, folks. For example, imagine a case where you were threatened, you displayed your gun, you didn’t fire a shot didn’t hurt anybody—and now you find yourself charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, typically a 10-year felony.

If you’re charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, you’re looking at a retainer to your lead counsel on the order of $30,000 to $50,000. And that’s just for pre-trial work, folks, that’s not for going to trial. If it’s a killing case, where you’re charged with manslaughter or murder, you’re easily looking at $100,000 or $200,000 pre-trial expense, and just multiply that for the trial.

So, if you don’t have that kind of money stuffed in your mattress just in case you’re compelled to defend yourself and your family, it can be useful to have a financial partner standing behind you to make sure you have the resources you need to fight the legal battle, the way you want it fought—as if your life depended on it. Because, really, it does.  And that’s what CCW Safe offers to do.

There are several companies out there that offer similar services. I’ve looked at all of them, as you might imagine, and I found that CCW Safe is the best fit for me personally.  I’m a member of CCW Safe, my wife Emily is a member of CCW Safe.

One of the biggest reasons I favored CCW Safe over other similar offerings is that many of those others simply don’t provide the level resources you need for an adequate legal defense. If you’re looking at a “self-defense insurance” offer that caps out at $150,000 or $250,000, that’s simply not enough for a murder or manslaughter trial if you’ve killed someone in self-defense, as I’ve already discussed. In contrast, CCW Safe promises to pay what the defense costs, period, with no such cap.

And what if you lose a trial and you have to appeal. CCW Safe covers you on appeals again, with no cap. These other companies often say well, we’ll cover you up to the limit of the cap on an appeal. But of course, you’ll have spent all that money at the trial itself. So effectively, there is no coverage for an appeal.

So be aware if your plan that you’re looking at or already have has that kind of cap. I know $250,000 sounds like a lot of money, folks, and it is a lot of money, but not in the context of a criminal defense in the murder or manslaughter case. Read the fine print, folks, and understand what you’re getting—and not getting—from any such offering you’re considering.

Having said that CCW Safe is the best fit for me, whether they are the best fit for you is something only you can decide. But I do encourage you to take a look at what they have to offer by clicking the image or link below:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe

And if you do decide to become a member of CCW Safe, you can save 10% off your membership at that URL http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe, using the discount code LOSD10.

News

Okay, folks, so that’s it for our sponsor message. Let’s jump into the news and I have a bunch of interesting news to share with all of you.

Governor Asa Hutchinson has signed a bill bringing a “stand your ground” law to the state of Arkansas.

One is touching again on a story we’ve been covering for some weeks, and that is the standard ground legislation that’s been moving its way through the Arkansas legislature. I see in the news today that these this bill, Senate Bill 24 is now act 250 was signed by the governor of Arkansas is a Hutchinson yesterday. So he signed standard ground into law.

Congratulations, Arkansas, you’re now a standard ground state or at least you will be when the law actually takes effect. The delay between signing and taking effect varies between states. I don’t claim to be an expert on that. I think in Arkansas, they do something like the law takes effect 91 days, either after it’s signed or after the legislature of that session is adjourned. I’m not sure what it probably does not take effect today, folks. So there may be some period of weeks or months during which Arkansas is still a duty to retreat state before the standard ground legislation takes effect. But it will take effect it has become signed in Arkansas so good news for Arkansas.

That brings the number of standard ground states in the US from 37 to 38. There are now only 12 duty to retreat states left in the US several of them, by the way have their own standard ground bills working their way through the legislature.

So we may see the number of standard ground states even further reduced, which has been the trend over the last 20 years. I’ve seen perhaps a dozen or 15 states move from the duty to retreat column to the standard ground column. No state has gone the other way. No state has gone from standard ground to duty to retreat. And by the way, folks, the streets are not running with blood as a result of states becoming standard ground.

Stand Your Ground has always been the majority position among the US states, and it’s never resulted in crushing killing sprees in the streets.

I’ll also mention of course, you may recall I talked about at the time but Ohio Stand Your Ground law was signed bill was signed into law a few months ago. It takes effect in just about a month, a month and two days on April 6 2021, the standard ground bill in Ohio that was signed by their governor becomes effective and Ohio becomes a standard ground state. I’m already counting that among the 48 states, even though technically Ohio is not yet stand your ground for about another month.

Now, the difference between Ohio and Arkansas is Ohio standard grandma is a hard standard ground law, meaning retreats taken off the table, the jury is not even allowed to consider whether or not retreat was possible in determining whether or not a defenders use of force was reasonable.

The Arkansas version, a standard ground is a soft, standard ground. So there’s no legal duty to retreat. Under Arkansas Stand Your Ground law wants to take takes effect. But the prosecution is still free to argue that although there is no legal duty to retreat, a reasonable person would have under the circumstances and therefore your use of force was unreasonable. And therefore the jury should deny you self defense on the basis of having conducted yourself unreasonably by failing to retreat, even though there’s no legal duty to do so. So that’s one difference.

By the way, for those of you who’d like a list of the remaining 12 duty to retreat states, we do have kind of a standing blog post on this topic. I’ve just updated it today with this news, the 12 duty to retreat states that force innocent victims facing imminent death to flee for their lives. This is updated as of today, this is a members only piece of content however. So you do need to be a Law of Self Defense Member to access that you can access it at here have a little piece here, blog link for those of you who would like to see that you can access that post by clicking the image or link below:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/dutytoretreat

So if it’s updated again, in a month or a year or whatever, we’ll always update that that blog post. And you can always use that same URL to get the the most current version of that blog post.

Okay, next news item. And by the way, all these news items, folks, we do this as a video, Obviously, if you’re watching it live, we also do it as a podcast. As I already mentioned, we also provide a transcript of the show on the lawofselfdefense.com/blog. These new weekly News/Q&A Shows are available to the general public. So you don’t need to be a Law of Self Defense Member to access the transcript. And in that transcript we do provide links to all these news stories. So every news story, I go through, any statute I may mention, any court case, any jury instruction will link each of those so you can go look at the original source for all this.

Victim of burglary arrested after allegedly shooting, kidnapping 16-year-old suspected burglar

So the second news story involves is headlined victim of burglary, arrested after allegedly shooting kidnapping 16 year old suspected burglar. So the story here is appears to be that there were three teenagers 16 year olds or there abouts who are going through a apartment complex and breaking into cars and stealing stuff. Very common kind of crime.

Unfortunately, bad luck to the teenagers. They happen to come across one car, which they broke into and the owner of the car was aware became aware that they were burglarizing his car and he stepped out and he confronted them.

Now the news story basically says that he shot one of the teenagers for breaking into his car. That would be a bad thing. Now this takes place in Louisiana where there is no legal privilege to use deadly force in defense of property in the absence of some threat to person. So no privilege to use deadly force merely in defense of property alone. And of course, breaking in someone’s car is a property offense. It doesn’t have baked into the cake, any threat to a person.

So usually the news media covers these events incompetently and they’re doing that again here. So the news reports while he shot the teenager for breaking into his car, he says something quite different. He says I went out to confront them. And they threatened me with what appeared to be a gun or some kind of weapon and would turn out to be a screwdriver which is a very effective weapon by the way. He says he was threatened by them wielding the weapon and that’s when he shot at the burglars and he struck this one particular teenager.

So far so good, frankly, I mean if they weren’t an imminent deadly force, right with the screwdriver, which is certainly feasible, the use of deadly defensive force would be justified. Of course, in that case, he’s using deadly defensive force to defend his person not to defend his car. And it may well be justified to use deadly defensive force to defend his person under these circumstances.

Then, of course, things go sideways because of poor judgment by the defender. For one thing, it appears that at least he claims he had $10,000 in cash in this truck in his vehicle, that got taken by the burglars, presumably the other burglars, because he quote unquote, caught the burglar that he shot. He sees custody of the burglar that he shot. So he demanded that burglar lead him to where they’d stashed the $10,000.

Folks don’t leave anything of value in your vehicle, please, certainly not cash. So who knows whether this is true or not.

But in any case, that was his excuse. He took custody of this teenager, the shot teenager said, Tell me bring me to where the money is. And I guess the teenager gave him directions and he drove the teenager to the site of where the money was. And then he apparently the defender quote unquote, called 911 at that location, and the police responded.

Well, certainly the teenagers were engaged in burglary. And in fact, the teenager who’s been who was shot has been charged with many counts of burglary, because apparently they’re burglaries not just this car, but many other cars that had other stolen property on their person. So they’re going to be charged with burglary, for sure.

The Defender of the car who shot the teenager, he’s facing charges folks of kidnapping for taking this teenager to where the purported $10,000 had been stashed.

Folks, there’s things you can do in self defense. And there’s things you can’t do if you’re facing an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force. You can use deadly defensive force to save your life to defend yourself. Defend other innocent parties that you’re with what you can’t do is commit kidnapping. You can order someone into a vehicle and drive them someplace against their will. That’s kidnapping. Now, suppose if you were driving them to a hospital or a police station, perhaps that would be different, but that’s not what was happening here.

And keep in mind, folks, as we hear more and more news stories about citizen’s arrest laws, this will be a big headline coming up because citizens arrest is a key issue in the Ahmaud Arbery shooting. The defense in that case is going to argue, Of course, that their clients, the McMichaels and Roddy Bryan, the gentleman who filmed the Arbery event on the cell phone camera, they’ve all been charged with various crimes.

The McMichaels have been charged with felony murder predicated on aggravated assault. Roddy Bryan’s been charged with felony murder predicated on unlawful imprisonment. In other words, what he thought was a genuine act of citizen’s arrest, and probably was under Georgia law, the prosecutor’s characterizing as unlawful imprisonment, which is a felony under Georgia law. And because Arbery died, it’s the predicate for felony murder, which the sentence of that will be the same as just murder, folks. So it’s looking at the rest of his life in prison.

So keep in mind is people talk about how citizen’s arrest laws are horrible. And I’ll be the first to grant that probably Georgia citizens wrestling needs to be narrowed from what it was when it was passed in 1863. But if there’s no citizen’s arrest law on the books, you have zero privilege to hold someone at gunpoint, no matter what they’ve done. They could have massacred a church full of people and now they’re walking away. And absent a citizen’s arrest law, you have no right to stop them from walking away.

I’m not sure that’s the social policy we want to set in this country. But there’s an old cliche in the law that bad cases make bad law. And unfortunately, I think the fact that Georgia had retained on the books a nearly 150 year old citizens arrest law that may not be a good fit for modern circumstances, might lead to the pendulum swinging so far in the other direction against citizens rest, generally, that we have a lot of unfortunate negative, unintended consequences.

‘I would spend the rest of my life in a 6-by-8 cell for her,’ says father accused in slaying

Okay, next news story. This one comes out of Palm Beach, Florida, I used to spend a lot of summers as a teenager down in Palm Beach, Florida working on golf courses and such, so very familiar with that part of Florida. And the headline here is quoting the person of interest. It’s a father of adult daughter. The father is quoted as saying I would spend the rest of my life in a six by eight cell for my daughter.

Well, I’m a father of three daughters. I certainly understand the sentiment but there’s smart ways to do that and not so smart ways folks.

And apparently in this case, this gentleman 50 years old, had an adult daughter who’s 2425 years old and she was having difficulty with a gentleman I’m not sure if there was a relationship either romantic or workwise. But in any case, there were some circumstance that led to this gentleman being able to make the daughter extremely unhappy and reduce her to a state of tears.

A circumstance the daughter’s father did not like very much. So he decided he was going to go talk to this guy. So he goes to this guy’s house, and ends up shooting him three or four times and killing him. He claims now that he’s been arrested on murder charges for shooting this gentleman, who might very well have been a very unpleasant person, he claims now with self defense.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of facts in this case that suggest not self defense.

One is folks if that if you go to the fight rather than the fight coming to you, it doesn’t look like self defense to anybody. Does that mean you’re not allowed to go and talk to someone with the intent of merely talking and then if they attack you with deadly force, you can’t defend yourself now you can defend yourself.

But it may not look like self defense, because you went to the fight, I strongly encourage my students and clients to not engage in conduct or put themselves in circumstances where anger, rage, either their own or somebody else’s, is likely to spool up out of control, because you lose a lot of options when you put yourself in that circumstance. And it looks really bad in hindsight.

Also, this father, once he shot and killed this gentleman, I didn’t immediately call the police and say, Oh, I had to shoot this guy in self defense, which is what you would expect in a self defense case. Instead, he engaged in a lot of consciousness of guilt evidence.

So for those of you who don’t know, consciousness of guilt evidence is evidence of conduct that suggests that the person who engaged in the conduct had a consciousness and awareness that they had acted wrongfully. And I’m talking here about things like lying to the police about what happened.

Tampering with evidence at the scene. And this is where the old cliche about if you shoot someone outside your house, drag them inside the house before you call the cops, folks, the cops don’t need to be CSI to follow that big red blood, smear up your stoop into your front door to know what you just did.

Things like fleeing the scene for purposes other than safety. Folks, if you’re in a dangerous place, don’t stay there. After a self defense event, get yourself to a position of safety. But once you’re in a position of safety, the normal rules apply again. If you keep fleeing, it begins to look like consciousness of guilt evidence that you’re in flight for purposes of avoiding identification or avoiding being held accountable.

This is all conduct that people who know they’ve done something wrong do it’s not the conduct of someone who believes they acted unlawful self defense does. So what did this guy do? Well, apparently, he took his gun apart afterwards, and tossed the pieces into various canals and ponds around Palm Beach County. I’m not sure how many ponds there are. But there’s lots of canals. in Palm Beach County, I guess there’s lots of ponds on the golf courses.

The detectives later recovered the gun barrel from a sewer drain and the ammunition magazine from a trash can. So obviously, probably the only way they recovered this stuff is he ultimately broke down and told them where to find it.

But none of that, folks is evidence consistent with lawful self defense. It’s all consciousness of guilt evidence. And it’s the basis for additional charges because tampering with evidence is itself a crime. So now this gentleman is facing charges of first degree murder, and destroying evidence for the evidence tampering. Conduct.

So don’t do that folks don’t engage in consciousness of guilt evidence, because if you do, the jury is likely to get a consciousness of guilt jury instruction, which effectively tells the jury, the prosecution has argued that this defendant has engaged in lying to the police in tampering with evidence and flight from the scene for purposes of it and safety. And if you believe the prosecution’s proven that conduct beyond a reasonable doubt, you are allowed to infer essentially, that not only does the prosecution think the defendant is guilty, the defendant thinks the defendant is guilty.

That’s not a jury instruction you want folks it’s extremely destructive to any legal defense, especially a self defense case. We’re in self defense folks. Remember, ultimately, everything depends on your word, right? If the jury doesn’t believe you, there is no self defense. And if you’ve engaged in consciousness of guilt evidence, it’s all various forms of lying deception. They’re hardly going to be willing to believe you at all if you’ve engaged in such conduct, at least that they believe you’ve engaged in such conduct.

DA declines murder charges in “Defense of RV” killing

Here’s another interesting case. This one’s out of California. And this was a man who shot his neighbor. The story goes and the way the news story frames the facts the shooter, the defender was in his RV Add a RV storage lot.

Now, I don’t personally know in our own an RV, but I’m familiar with them. And I know how it usually works. If I’m mistaken, I’m sure someone will correct me in the comments. But normally you have an RV. If you’re not allowed to store it on your own property, like you live in an HOA or something like that when you’re not using it, you store the RV at a big parking lot an RV storage facility. While it’s at the RV storage facility, it’s not a noose, it’s being stored. When you take it out of the storage facility and you go on vacation, then it’s being used.

And this distinction is important for use of force purposes. So when I first started reading the story, and I saw the RV was parked in a storage facility, I thought well, this makes the defense justification certainly not impossible, but more difficult than it would have been if the RV was actually being used as a resonance.

In any case, the defender was in his RV, the other gentleman storms into the RV with a metal object threatens the defender. The Defender was he says in fear of imminent threat of deadly force harm. So he pulled his gun and shoots the neighbor who stormed into his RV.

And those facts alone, it looks like a pretty good use of force event. You don’t need any real complicated rules. If you’re facing an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force, you’re allowed to use deadly force and self defense. And that’s what the defender is claiming here.

The RV does raise additional possible dimensions. And that is it might be a case where the RV could potentially qualify as highly defensible property meaning it could qualify as your castle.

Now your home certainly qualifies as your castle wherever you’re living qualifies as your castle. So inside the four walls of your home, and that’s where you defend yourself, you’re defending yourself in your castle. And you can get special privileges of self defense in the context of defending yourself against an intruder in your castle. But the concept of castle for this purpose is broader than just your home, it’s anywhere you’re living.

So includes temporary or transient castles. So if you’re in a hotel room while you’re staying at the hotel, not after you’ve checked out and left. But while you’re staying in the hotel, at least those parts of the hotel to which you have right of exclusion. So we’re really talking just your hotel room, not the corridor or the common areas. Well, that hotel room is your castle for use of force purposes.

If you’re camping in a tent, that tent becomes your castle for use of force, defensive, highly defensible property purposes.

And if you’re living in your RV, if your RV is in use, you’re on vacation in it, you’re sleeping in it, it becomes your castle during that period in which it’s in use.

Now when it’s in storage, it’s not your castle anymore, because it’s not in use as your castle it’s not being used in a residence. And this would be true even if you’re visiting the RV to sweep it or clean it or whatever you have to do with an RV if you’re not using it as your residence. It’s not your castle for us to force purpose purposes.

So when I first started reading the story, I thought, well, it’s in a storage area, right the guy’s not on vacation when this happened. So this isn’t going to qualify as his castle for use of force purposes, which makes a difference because of it is your castle. under California law, the law in many other states, if you’re dealing with an unlawful forcible intruder into your castle, it’s legally presumed that you had a reasonable fear of imminent deadly force harm. And that presumption gives you most of what you need almost all of what you need to justify the use of deadly defensive force. So it’s a very powerful legal presumption in your favor. But it only applies in your castle, either your permanent castle or temporary castle.

So the RV is in storage and you’re not using it as your dwelling and it’s not your castle, you don’t get the benefit of this legal presumption.

But as I continue reading, the news story became apparent to me that this is one of those quirks of California, where given the the unbelievable price and frequent unavailability of housing. Many people actually just live in their RV. It’s not a vacation option. It’s how they actually live all the time. Sometimes the RV is not even functional, meaning it can’t actually be transported anywhere. It’s just parked like like a double wide trailer, I guess it would be a single wide trailer. It’s just parked on the curb or somewhere. And that’s the person’s house. That’s how they live.

So although this RV was, quote, unquote, in a storage area, apparently this defender was in fact, living there. So he wasn’t on vacation. It was just his normal castle. He didn’t have a house someplace else. This is where he lived, in which case it does qualify as highly defensible property. He does get the benefit of that legal presumption and the fact the DA in this jurisdiction very quickly decided he’s not going to charge this guy for the shooting. says Now that was his RV. He was living in it. It’s his castle. He gets the benefit of that legal presumption. I don’t see any way we could disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt under the circumstances. So we’re not going to charge this guy for the shooting, which seems to be a perfectly reasonable legal position for the DA to take.

Unfortunately for the defender, it also turns out that he happened to have prior felony convictions, which means he’s not allowed to be in possession of firearms, including the firearm, he used to defend himself against an apparently deadly force attack. So he’s a felon in possession. And although he’s not being charged for killing his neighbor, he is being charged on the gun charge a felon in possession, which is no good for several years in prison by itself.

So just a reminder to all of us folks, that your use of force itself could be perfectly lawful and carries zero criminal liability. And you could still get hooked up on some other independent criminal charge, sometimes even felony criminal charges for conduct completely independent of the righteousness of the use of force event itself.

Okay, those were all the news items I wanted to cover.

Law of Self Defense Members-Only Content

Again, I want to remind everybody, this is the only open access content we produce each week. Although we do produce a ton of content for our members. Every week that is members only restricted. I’d like to give you an all that content is produced in video form, much like you’re watching now, as an audio podcast. That’s members only it’s separate from our open access News/Q&A Podcast.

So we have a members only podcast. And of course, as written blog posts at the Law of Self Defense Blog, where we include links to every law or news story or anything else of interest, court orders and so forth arguments motions that are made in court, we include all that kind of documentary information to allow you to actually look at the original sources of everything we talked about, because we don’t want you to believe what Andrew Branca has to say about use of force law. Just because I say it, we want you to understand that I say it because it’s based in actual law. So we always link you to the actual law. So you can see that as well see all the legalese in addition to our plain English translation of all that legalese.

So to give you a sense of the kind of stuff that we cover, over the course of the week, this is content we’ve produced for our members just since our last news and q&a show.

The Popularity—and Dangers!—of Defensive Display Statutes

So on Monday, March 1, we did a piece on the popularity and the dangers of defensive display statutes. This was prompted by legislation going forward in Alaska, seeking to clarify that defensive display of a firearm is not a crime.

There are many states in the last few years in particular that have passed similar statutes, you know, display of a gun in an effort to change someone else’s behavior could be for lawful purposes or unlawful purposes. And if it’s for unlawful purposes, it looks a lot like aggravated assault with a firearm, which is good for 10 or 20 years 10 or 20 years of a felony sentence in prison. And if it’s done for lawful purposes, it ought not be a crime at all.

So there’s a big dichotomy between those two options, those two different ways a prosecutor could look at those cases. And there are what I would characterize as overly aggressive prosecutors that do bring those felony charges against people who, in their own minds, they had a genuine good faith belief that they were simply making a lawful defensive display. And even if they get acquitted, they get crushed by the financial consequences the economic consequences of having to defend themselves against very serious felony charges.

So states have begun to pass these defensive play display statutes to try to help the good faith well intentioned defender who’s displayed their gun in an effort to deter violence to prevent that person from being criminally charged. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to draft these statutes in a way that’s actually effective in accomplishing the statutes, the legislature’s goal, and we end up in a circumstances where people may hear that the statutes are passed and think that they’re now protected against felony charges that they make a defensive display.

But for the most part, these statues don’t actually accomplish that goal. So that creates a danger someone could display their gun thinking it’s lawful, still find themselves facing felony charges despite the statute.

So we talked about all that in that blog post popularity and dangers of defensive display statutes. We publish that in video, text and podcast form just this past Monday.

Is A Punch to the Face a Deadly Force Attack?

On Tuesday, we published a post on whether a punch to the face can constitute a deadly force attack and this is important to know because you can only use deadly defensive force you can only go to your gun and self defense for example, if you’re facing a deadly force threat, well is a punch to your face and deadly force threat because of it’s not the guns not the legal answer to that problem, and eventually is perhaps the gun is the legal answer to that problem.

So it’s important to know whether a punched in the face constitutes a deadly force attack. And unfortunately, it really depends on what lawyers like to call the totality of the circumstances, which is, in my opinion, not a very useful phrase.

But in this blog post, we step through precisely the kinds of circumstances that can escalate or aggravate a thrown punch, which is normally considered by the courts only non deadly force. But circumstances that can aggravate or escalate a throne punch from mere non deadly force against what your guns not an appropriate response to deadly force against which your gun may be an appropriate response.

And there are very specific types of characteristics to look for to draw that distinction between a non deadly force punch and a deadly force punch that we step through all of that in some detail in that blog post from this past Tuesday.

Media Slowly Sensing Perhaps Floyd’s Death Maybe Not A Murder?

And then just yesterday, we published a blog post on the George Floyd trial, which is, jury selection begins this Monday, folks in just a few years. This, of course, was the case of George Floyd resisting lawful arrest, being restrained on the asphalt by four police officers, including one officer Chauvin, who had his knee on George Floyd’s neck Floyd would die while being held in that position. And the the murder charges brought against Officer Chauvin. And accessory to murder charges brought against the other officers are premised on the belief or the argument, I don’t think anyone really believes this, at least no one informed really believes this, on the argument that it was Chauvin knee on Floyd’s neck that killed them.

In fact, I covered this in detail in this blog post, it’s almost certain that the cause of death had effectively nothing to do with the knee. But that Floyd died because he had a three-fold fatal dose of fentanyl in the system.

And we know now from police records and other events that Floyd had a history of ingesting illicit drugs when he was facing arrest, so he would not be caught with those drugs on this person. So it appears almost certain that what happened he saw he was about to be arrested for passing a bad bill at a local convenience store. The convenience owner had called the police. That’s why they responded.

He saw the police approaching he ingested the fentanyl, and basically committed suicide on unintentional presumably suicide by that ingestion of fentanyl and he would have been dead within 10 minutes, no matter what the police have done, regardless of this knee to the neck.

But in any case, that case jury selection begins on Monday, the trial will begin within a week or two of jury selection starting so sometime in March, we can expect the trial to begin. And probably by mid April. It’ll be all over and we’ll have a verdict in the case.

But we cover a lot of this in this blog post which itself addresses a wall street journal article in which the Wall Street Journal is writing. Wow, you know, it looks like it might be really hard to hold these officers accountable for the death of George Floyd. And they seem mystified by the fact that it will be hard to hold the officers accountable. Because they presume as many people do that, well this was obviously murder, right? I mean, it had to be murder.

In fact, if you look at social media, it’s all about murder. Here’s some things I took off Twitter just a moment ago. Here’s one:

A barbed wire barriers going up around Minneapolis courthouse ahead of the trial for Derek Chauvin, the cop who murdered George Floyd.

Did he murder him? Isn’t the trial is supposed to tell us?

Just reminder the murderer of George Floyd Derek Chauvin will be stand trial on March 8.

March 8, really is the start of jury selection, not the trial proper, but whatever.

And another Twitter post almost identical to the first one I read folks, which shows this is probably part of a propaganda campaign. They just slightly modified the image and kept the text exactly the same from a different Twitter account.

So this is how social media propaganda works in 2021, and has for some years, but again, the cop who murdered George Floyd, folks murders, legal determination.

That’s what the trial is supposed to tell us. If he if we just already know he murdered him, why not just hang officer Chauvin from the nearest tree? We don’t need to trial, right. We all know he murdered him. At least that’s what the public narrative is supposed to be.

So just a reminder, folks that these lynch mobs come for people, they came for George Zimmerman. They come in many of these high profile, high profile cases are coming for Officer Chauvin.

They’re completely disconnected from any law, any evidence and the facts. These are all politically motivated campaigns. And these people want your blood if you’re the person who’s had to defend yourself in one of these energized cases, they’re calling you a murderer for months, a year before your trial.

You’re not Presumed Innocent by these people. And all the whole world will hear for that whole year prior to your trial is that you’re a murderer, murderer, murderer. Plus, of course a racist, racist, racist. You’re lucky as sin if you can end up with a jury that hasn’t been poisoned by all this. In fact, in the Zimmerman case, there were people, prospective jurors who tried to get impaneled, who had web pages calling for the lynching of George Zimmerman. Thankfully, George Zimmerman’s defense team identified them during voir dire and did not allow them to be impaneled on the jury.

But imagine if even one of those people was on the jury, the most government could have hoped for was a hung jury. And he would have been tried again and again and again, until his resources were exhausted, and he was finally convicted.

So that’s what these Lynch mobs do in these cases.

And I always caution people, folks, I know, obviously, I’m a criminal defense attorney, people like to be critical of criminal defense attorneys. After all, we defend criminals, what kind of person would do that? I would just remind all of you that when the lynch mob call comes for you in these cases, effectively, the only person standing between you and them is that criminal defense attorney, folks, and you’ll want a good one, and you’ll want one who’s really fighting for your life, because that’s what’s at stake in these cases, is your life.

CCW Safe: Our Sponsor

So this is a good opportunity for me to remind you again, we have our sponsor earlier in the show CCW Safe, make sure you have the resources to be able to afford the kind of criminal defense attorney that you want. And again, that is CCW safe, you can save 10% off your membership with them. If you decide to join that http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe, discount code LOSD10, LOSD for law of self defense, and the number 10.

http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe

Law of Self Defense Platinum Protection Program

And also completely separate from CCW safe we have our own law of self defense. Well, that’s not the one I wanted. Oh, yes, it is the Platinum protection program. The only cases we take a loss off the fence. The only cases I work on now folks are cases involving Law of Self Defense Members, particularly members in our Platinum Protection Program.

If you’re not in that program, I have to decline to take your case. It’s just the nature of the workload that we have in the office.

The good news is if you are a platinum protection member, my involvement on your case cost you nothing, not a penny and my normal retainer this year is a minimum of $1,000 to consult on a case. You not only get that for nothing but you get my guaranteed availability which most people don’t get most cases that come into my office, we have to say no to.

So if it’s of interest to guarantee my availability on your case should the worst happen. And no, it won’t cost you a penny more than your program membership, then I would encourage you to learn more by clicking the image or link below:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/platinum

Law of Self Defense Membership: 99¢ Trial!

Okay, folks, let’s see what else we have. Oh, of course, I mentioned all that members only content. Obviously, you need a member to be able to take advantage of that the good news is membership is extremely inexpensive. If you’d like to consider becoming a law, self defense member, I would encourage you to take advantage of our trial option, you can become a law self defense member for a two week period for just 99 cents, folks. 99 cents, and you have the same access as any other standard Law of Self Defense Member to all our content, it’s years of video blog posts, podcast content, try it for two weeks or 99 cents.

If you decide you don’t like it, virtually no one doesn’t like it. But if you decide you don’t like it, we’ll refund 200% of your money. So it’s a negative risk opportunity.

Virtually everyone stays a member however, and the normal cost of membership is only about 25 cents a day, folks, it’s less than $10 a month. So it hardly breaks the bank and you get access not just to the News/Q&A content, but all the other content we produce every week all our analysis of these high profile cases. So you can really understand the law of self defense and how it actually applies to real people in the real world in real use of force cases.

And you can take advantage of that trial option by clicking the image or link below:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/trial

QUESTIONS

All right, let’s dive now into our questions. So we got a few very good questions here.

A good thing? “Self-defense insurance programs that pay lawyers a fixed fee are good at getting you a low-cost lawyer and at plea bargaining”

One of these involved again, these quote unquote self defense insurance policies, and this was a gentleman jack who emailed me. I had spoken a week or two earlier about one of these programs. It happened to be US law shield, but it’s one of the programs that has a capitated or flat fee arrangement with their program lawyers.

Now I’m saying none of this to disparage US law shield I just spoke with two of their senior executives a couple of weeks ago, very nice guys seem to be doing very good work. I’m not commenting on them personally or in US law shield in particular, but I am going to comment on these capitated or flat fee types of programs generally.

So this gentleman, Jack, who emailed me he makes a number of representations about these programs. I want to make clear that We should not assume his representations are of US law shield or an accurate representation of US law shield. I don’t know how wellJack knows them. I don’t know if his information is accurate.

But there was, he touched upon a number of issues in his email that I thought worth sharing with you. So think of this is not specific to US law shield, but generally flat fee programs in which lawyers participating are paid a flat fee or capitated a fixed fee for taking on a client case in the program.

So, Jack writes, I think you were a little misleading when you were discussing that program last week. You’re right. If it’s a big name, Attorney, then they probably won’t take a case for what these programs pay because they pay much less than would normally be charged for, say, a murder case, for example. But all defense attorneys start out as newbies and have to earn their reputation. You could not demand nor deserve your current billing rate as a young attorney, meaning me, presumably Andrew Branca.

That’s all true, folks. So all attorneys start from nothing, I would say less than nothing. Unfortunately, law school generally does a very poor job of teaching lawyers how to actually practice law, it does a good job of teaching the theory of law. And that’s important stuff to know.

But it doesn’t do a great job of teaching how to actually practice law, you kind of learn that as you do it. Unfortunately, I hear law schools have gotten a little better at this in recent years. But somebody’s fresh out of law school who just passed the bar is unlikely to be a very good attorney, especially a criminal defense attorney, folks, and that’s not their fault. Everybody starts from nothing, right? Me too, by the way.

And so the idea here that Jack is suggesting as well, you know, there’s attorneys, you get an attorney, just you don’t get a big name attorney, you get an attorney who’s a newbie, who can’t demand a high price anyway. And even I could not demand the high price when I was a new attorney, as I’ve already mentioned. And that’s all true.

But my response to that, then is, is that what you want? I mean, if you’ve killed someone in self defense, and you find yourself charged with murder, or manslaughter, and you’re looking at spending the rest of your life in a cage, do you want the low budget attorney with no experience? Because that’s not who I want. And I wouldn’t be comfortable in a program where that’s what I would be expected to accept. I want the best legal defense I can possibly get the reason I join these programs. The reason I’m a member of CCW safe, is to make sure that I have the resources to get the most expensive attorney. If that’s what I think is necessary for my legal defense.

I don’t want a budget attorney. I don’t want an attorney who’s working for a 10th of what he would normally charge. Now, you know, legal ethics require him to do the same kind of job he would if he were being paid his full rate. But let’s face it, folks, I mean, can you reasonably expect people to work is hard if they have effectively unlimited resources like a CCW Safe would provide as if they’re being provided a fraction of what they would normally get for a case, I’m not sure that’s a reasonable expectation.

Jack also says something interesting. And I don’t know if this is true. But let’s pretend it’s true for purposes of discussion. He writes, they are good at plea bargaining.

Well, folks, to me, that’s not a strength, that’s a weakness, arguably.

Plea bargaining, of course, is when you come to an arrangement with the prosecutors not to go to trial in exchange for pleading guilty to some lesser charge. And if you’re charged with a felony, say you’ve killed someone and self defense, they’re not going to let you play out to a non felony, you’re going to have to play to a felony, maybe even do jail time. Maybe not life in prison, maybe a year or two or three or possibility of parole, but you’re going to get that felony conviction. They’re not going to let you go off of that they were willing to charge you with murder or manslaughter in the first place.

And unfortunately, in these kind of capitated fixed fee arrangements, there’s a powerful incentive for the lawyer to go for the plea bargain. Because say he’s paying and I’m going to make up a number but say, you’ve been charged with murder, he gets paid $50,000 to do a murder case. $50,000 is a lot of money, no question about it. Not enough for a murder case, folks, not even close to enough for a murder case.

But it’s enough for a plea bargain. If instead of having to spend a year or two pre trial and then weeks in actual court in a murder trial, instead of having to invest all that effort in the effort of a staff and all of that. If instead of having to do all that he can take that same 50 grand and get the whole thing done in a week by having you take a plea bargain.

He’s got a powerful incentive to convince you to take the plea, rather than go to trial to get an acquittal. Potentially, right. That’s why you go to trial.

That’s not the relationship I want with my defense attorney either.

So I appreciate Jack sending me the email, and I responded to him much like I responded to all of you, but I thought it would be worth sharing with you in put that in context.

How is plain open-carry different than defensive display of a holstered gun towards an apparent aggressor?

Ray B sends in an email, he says, If I had talked before about if you display a gun, you could potentially be charged with aggravated assault with a firearm, or if the prosecutor thinks the display was for unlawful purposes, right? If someone says, Hey, I think you’re a jerk, you cut me off back there and shows you they have a gun. That’s not a lawful display of a gun, right? That’s the display of a gun to threaten you.

That’s different than if that person were to say, you know, you cut me off back there, raise the tire iron, and you display the gun to them. That would be a lawful defensive display, right for purposes of discussion. So it can be a fine line, it depends which version of that narrative, the prosecutor believes whether or not your defensive display was really defensive, and therefore lawful, or for some bad intent, and therefore criminal.

And Ray asks, well, what about if you open carry if you open carry? How is that different than if you sweep your coat back? And just allow the other person to see your concealed carry gun? Aren’t they the same things?

And the answer is, No, they’re not. Because when you sweep your coat back, you’re displaying the gun, for purposes of changing that other person’s behavior. That’s different than if you just happened to be walking around with a lawfully holster gun on your side that people can see. That case, you’re not displaying it for purposes of changing someone else’s behavior. It becomes a potentially criminal act when you’re doing it to change someone’s behavior.

And by the way, when you do it for self defense purposes, you are doing it to change someone’s behavior, you just have the justification that you’re doing it in self defense. So you have to distinguish between mere open carry on the one hand, and showing someone you have a gun for purposes of changing their behavior. That’s two completely different things.

Ever lawful to use of deadly defensive force in the absence of a deadly force threat?

We had a question here from Dave Gee, we got just a few minutes to get to this. He’s a platinum member. So this came in in our Platinum member q&a forum. So I wanted to make sure we hit it. He references

By the way, Rangemaster is Tom Givens and Lynn Givens self defense shooting company. They do absolutely brilliant work, I would strongly encourage you to take any instruction you can ever get. from Tom Givens and Lynn Givens and their Rangemaster crew.

In fact, they have their Rangemaster Tactical Conference coming up in just a couple weeks, I’ll be speaking at it this year. In Dallas, Texas, I’m sure it’s sold out. So don’t even bother trying to get in, I guess.

But they do a monthly newsletter and you can get the newsletter, you don’t have to be a member or anything. So in the text version of today’s content, I will have a link to this particular newsletter, the march 2021 newsletter from Rangemaster. I do encourage you to take a look at it.

RANGEMASTER MARCH 2021 NEWSLETTER

And there’s an article in there by a gentleman called Steven Harris. Steven Harris is an attorney he does a lot of writing on self defense. His writing is very, very sound. So I strongly encourage you to read everything Stephen Harris has to write about use of force law. I can’t say we agree 100% necessarily on how we might each do our analysis on a particular event, but we generally arrive at the same outcomes. Although I think our analytical approach is a little bit different, which is totally fine, totally reasonable.

But in his article, Attorney Harris, raises the idea of circumstances in which you may be privileged to use deadly defensive force even in the absence of a deadly force threat.

Now the standard model of when you’re privileged to use deadly defensive forces when you’re facing an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force harm, so you’re using deadly defensive force to stop a deadly force attack.

There are circumstances in which you can use deadly defensive force in the absence of a deadly force threat. Some of these are Florida, for example, has a statute that allows you to use deadly defensive force to prevent or stop a forcible felony. And then they go elsewhere. They enumerate what the forcible felonies are, and they tend to be things like armed robbery and rape and kidnapping.

Now, when we talk about forcible felonies, they say forcible felonies because it’s not all felonies, they tend to be felonies where they have some threat of deadly harm kind of baked into the cake right, an armed robbery, let’s face it has deadly harm baked into the cake. But in in sustaining your deadly defensive force use you won’t need to be able to articulate a deadly force harm if you can articulate the forcible felony was occurring. So that’s a distinction.

In the context of highly defensible property like your home. There are often felonies associated with the highly defensible property that trigger the privilege to use deadly defensive force without having to articulate a deadly force threat.

In New York State. For example, burglary of a home is one of the circumstances where the you can use deadly defensive force to stop that burglary. You don’t necessarily have to learn or take Later deadly force threat. Also, as I mentioned earlier in the context of your castle again, highly defensible property if there’s a forcible unlawful intruder, it creates a presumption that you had a reasonable perception of an imminent deadly force threat. In that case, the deadly force threat is still a requirement. It’s not being forgiven or waived, but it’s presumed to exist because of the circumstances of the intrusion.

And there are increasingly I see efforts to pass laws that allow for the use of deadly defensive force, under certain circumstances, to stop any degree of threat, so to stop even a non deadly force threat, and usually there’s some aggravating circumstances surrounding that non deadly force threat. Colorado, for example, has a make my day law which says if you’re dealing with an intruder in your home, and there’s any degree of threat from that person, you can use deadly defensive force, no matter how slight the threat from that person. So even a non deadly force threat would qualify.

And there are states now trying to pass bills into law that would allow for the deadly defensive use of deadly defensive force against a non deadly force threat in the aggravating circumstance of a riot, or public disorder. So normally, you would not be privileged to use deadly defensive force against that non deadly force threat. But now you would be because it’s taking place in the context of a riot. So I don’t know if any of those have become law yet. I don’t think so. None of them come immediately to mind. But I have seen several bills of that type Florida’s got a notable one. But I saw one from another state just this past week, attempting the same thing.

Alright, folks, well, we’re at the top of the hour, and I’m afraid that’s it. That’s all I’ve got time for today

FLASH SALE~ 75% OFF LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE COURSE & STATE SUPPLEMENT!

I would just remind all of you again, oh, we are running a sale this week, we’re continuing the sale the special offer, we have for all of you. It’s a combo package of our law of self defense level one class, this is our full day, eight hours of instruction on loss off the fence course, this is the course we normally teach in person as a full day course, available either online streamed or as a four DVD set, and a state specific supplement of your choice. So a separate course that’s specific to whatever individual state you prefer. We cover all 50 states in this. It’s a separate DVD specific to that particular state.

Altogether, it’s 10 or 12 hours of plain English, but world class education in use of force law, and we’re making it available in this offer. You can get it for 75% off that price.

Grab this opportunity NOW by clicking the image or link below!

http://lawofselfdefense.com/showsale

This is the last week we’re running this offer though. So by next week news and q&a show this will be gone.

Alright folks, that’s it for this week.

Thank you for joining me for this Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show for March 4 2021.

Until next time, just remember if you carry a gun so you’re hard to kill that’s why I carry a gun so I’m hard to kill. So my family is hard to kill. Then you also owe it to yourself and your family to make sure you know the law. So you’re hard to convict.

Alright folks, until next time, I’m Attorney Branca for Law of Self Defense. Stay safe.