Podcasts

Welcome to this episode of our ONLY open-access content, our weekly News/Q&A Show. 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. Be sure […]

Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense Members-only content! Today we get the opportunity to learn once again the lesson we ought to have learned long ago: If BLM didn’t have lies, they’d have nothing to say at all. To put it another way, if the Black Lives Matter organization is advancing a use-of-force narrative,

Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense Members-only content. Today we share with you a video narrative of the Kyle Rittenhouse event that was produced by one of Kyle’s attorneys, Linn Wood. It obviously serves as a counter-propaganda effort to the many lies being told about this case by the pro-Antifa/BLM activists and supporters. I

Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense Members-only content. Today I’d like to touch upon a facet of the POLICERACISTMURDER!111! narrative that’s one of the more subtle of its propaganda techniques—and that propaganda technique is the claim or at least the implication that the evidence in support of this view is so plain, so obvious,

Welcome, Law of Self Defense Members to today’s members-only content. Today I focus on a case out of Missouri involving the shooting of a woman driver by a county sheriff’s deputy, in which a special prosecutor concluded that the shooting was almost certainly lawful, but also “possibly avoidable.” What’s that even mean in the context

Welcome, Law of Self Defense Members, to today’s members-only content. Yesterday news broke that Jake Gardner, a bar owner from Nebraska, has been charged with manslaughter and various other felonies after having shot and killed James Scurlock, a violent “protestor” outside of Gardner’s business. Gardner is white and Scurlock was black. What’s most notable about

Welcome to this episode of our ONLY open-access content, our weekly News/Q&A Show. You’ll find video and a transcript of today’s show below. 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 our

Welcome, Law of Self Defense Members, to today’s members-only content! Most of you will be aware that the name “Breonna Taylor” has been added to the pantheon of demonstrably false cases of purported unaccountable POLICERACISTMURDER!!!11111!! narrative pushed by those profiting from racially dividing America. First, let me state explicitly up front:  I expect there’s nobody

Welcome, Law of Self Defense Members to today’s members-only content. Today we’re looking at a recent appellate court decision that does a particularly good job of stepping through both the conditions that must be met in order to be permitted to argue self-defense at trial, and the conditions that must be met in order to

Welcome, Law of Self Defense Members to today’s members-only content, this time looking at a recent use-of-force case that raises issues about regaining the element of Innocence, and thereby regaining self-defense as a legal justification for defensive force. A Law of Self Defense Member and a very active member of the Law of Self Defense