#265： The Law of Self-Defense
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
198.52098
Summary
On this episode of the Art of Manliness podcast, Brent McKay talks to attorney Andrew Branca about his new book, "The Law of Self-defense: How to Defend Yourself in Civil and Criminal Law." They discuss common legal myths about self-defense, how to defend yourself in civil and criminal cases, and when the law says you can do it.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Brett McKay here and welcome to another edition of the Art of Manliness podcast. So over the
00:00:18.780
years, we've had experts on the podcast to talk about how to defend yourself, guys like
00:00:22.000
Tim Larkin and Tony Blower. But one thing we never really covered is like, how do you
00:00:26.160
know when your use of force to defend yourself, whether it's lethal or non-lethal, is justified?
00:00:31.860
And what are the legal consequences if your self-defense isn't justified? Well, today on
00:00:35.840
the podcast, I talked to attorney Andrew Branca about his book, The Law of Self-Defense. Andrew
00:00:40.240
and I discuss the common legal myths people have about self-defense, how self-defense differs
00:00:44.240
in civil and criminal cases, and when the law says you can defend yourself and how you can
00:00:47.900
do it. Whether you're dealing with a person threatening your life or whether there's some
00:00:51.240
jerk who's shoving you at the bar saying, let's take this outside. Knowing how to defend yourself
00:00:55.020
isn't enough, you need to understand the legal implications of your actions as well. After
00:00:59.680
the show is over, make sure to check out the show notes at aom.is slash self-defense law
00:01:03.280
where you can find links to resources where you can delve deeper into this topic.
00:01:16.460
Let's talk a bit about your background because it's an interesting one. You're an attorney,
00:01:19.260
but you're also a firearms instructor and a competitive shooter. What sort of firearms competition
00:01:23.160
you did? Pardon? Is it three gun? Well, I was a competitive shooter long before I was an attorney.
00:01:26.980
I started competitive shooting as a kid, actually shooting small bore rifle in school. My high
00:01:32.140
school had a rifle range underneath the cafeteria in the basement of the building, and that's where
00:01:37.480
we used to practice and hold our matches. Yeah, that's how old I am. And then as an adult,
00:01:44.420
I switched from the rifle to mostly handgun shooting, starting with USPSA. And then when IDPA
00:01:51.900
started, I was fortunate to play a very modest refounding of IDPA, which is one of the newer
00:01:58.220
practical pistol sports. My IDPA number is 13. I believe they have over 25,000 members now. So I
00:02:04.800
was there at the very beginning. And that's been where most of my competition has been for the last
00:02:09.160
10 years or so. Fantastic. And so did your interest in firearms lead you to be an attorney? Or is that
00:02:14.260
something like, I got to make a living and I'll find a way to dovetail my interest in firearms into my
00:02:19.760
legal work? You know, we weren't a household that was wildly into guns, but we always had guns in
00:02:26.500
the home like most American households do. And I just found that I really enjoyed it. And if I
00:02:31.740
applied myself, I could be pretty good at it. So it was just a fun activity to engage in. Then of
00:02:37.680
course, once I became an adult, especially once I started a family, it took on a more serious tone.
00:02:42.920
It wasn't just fun anymore, but it was a fundamental responsibility, I thought, to be able to defend
00:02:48.140
myself and my family. And that's largely the reason I switched my focus from the rifle to the handgun.
00:02:55.360
Okay. And in your legal work, is there something you specialize in? Do you specialize in self-defense
00:03:00.720
or is it something, do you do other work in your legal work?
00:03:05.700
Well, when I started this, I had been an attorney for, I think, four or five years. And I would go to,
00:03:12.200
as a competitor, I would go to matches and gun shows and gun stores. And I would overhear people
00:03:17.800
giving each other advice, what to do if they've ever had to act in self-defense. And the advice was
00:03:23.280
absolutely horrific. It was things like, we've all heard, if you shoot someone outside your house,
00:03:28.140
make sure you drag them inside the house before you call the police. I mean, things that would
00:03:31.860
turn a perfectly lawful defensive shoot into something that looks a lot like manslaughter.
00:03:36.280
And I would explain to them why they don't want to do this. And they'd say, okay, we understand.
00:03:40.940
But what's the source that someone like us, a non-attorney can go to, to learn what the law
00:03:46.100
of self-defense actually is, as opposed to what our buddy, the cop told us, or what we heard about
00:03:50.620
on the internet or in a gun magazine. And it turned out there just, there wasn't a good source,
00:03:55.140
even very many good sources for attorneys, much less people who were not attorneys. And that's what led
00:04:00.200
me to write the first edition of our book, The Law of Self-Defense, way back in 1998.
00:04:04.860
And since then, our legal practice has been exclusively use of force law. So we don't do
00:04:12.940
Okay. So yeah, let's talk about the law of self-defense. In America, and there's people
00:04:20.440
who are listening who are not, who don't live in America, but it's a right in America. You can have
00:04:25.760
a firearm to defend yourself. We follow common law, and under common law, it allows to defend yourself.
00:04:34.320
Using physical force or sometimes lethal force if necessary. But with that ability, that right
00:04:40.600
to do that, there comes some responsibility, right? And understanding the law and what allows
00:04:46.600
you to do that. So I'm curious in your, I mean, it sounds like you sort of mentioned already in
00:04:51.160
your, what you said already is that doesn't seem like the legalities of self-defense gets covered
00:05:00.620
very much in depth when people buy a gun or go to, you know, gun training. Has that been your
00:05:06.820
experience or just doesn't get covered that much at all, or just sort of gets glossed over?
00:05:10.640
In general, either it doesn't get covered, or it gets covered superficially, or it gets covered
00:05:16.940
incorrectly. A lot of people think they know a lot about self-defense law, and they may have a lot of
00:05:23.040
knowledge, but unfortunately, often the knowledge they possess is wrong. There are many sources of
00:05:28.440
self-defense law out there, but most of them are bad sources of self-defense law. Your buddy who
00:05:34.380
owns... So what are some of the common... Oh, go ahead.
00:05:36.500
I was just going to say, you know, your friend, the cop who lives down the street,
00:05:40.520
he's gotten some use of force training in the academy, but most of what he knows
00:05:44.740
applies more to police officers than to non-police officers. Most attorneys you'll meet don't know
00:05:50.860
much of anything about self-defense law. They might have had a few minutes, literally minutes,
00:05:54.880
on it. In law school, unless they're a criminal defense attorney, they have no professional need
00:05:59.620
to know anything about self-defense law. And even though they're a criminal defense attorney,
00:06:03.500
most of their defense cases are going to be what I would refer to as bad self-defense cases,
00:06:08.460
bad guys who are simply raising a claim of self-defense to try to escape criminal liability
00:06:13.520
for their unlawful use of force. Attorneys, even criminal defense attorneys, get very, very,
00:06:18.540
very few good self-defense cases over the course of an entire career.
00:06:23.420
And because of that, I mean, what are some of the myths about self-defense law that's out there?
00:06:29.860
Oh, there's all kinds of misinformation. There's misinformation in terms of what kind
00:06:34.880
of force you can use in response to different kinds of threats that you could simply, for example,
00:06:40.360
use a gun if you're merely afraid of some kind of threat that you're facing, regardless of the
00:06:45.740
degree of threat, the circumstances under which you can use, that you have exceptional ability to
00:06:52.520
use different degrees of force under certain circumstances, especially around a person's
00:06:56.560
home. A lot of people get in their head that if a certain set of conditions immediately triggers
00:07:02.300
their right to use deadly force against another person, and usually they're wrong about the
00:07:06.300
circumstances that they have in mind. So there are a bewildering array of ways that people get
00:07:12.480
themselves into trouble on a self-defense claim. Now, the good news is that actually learning the
00:07:17.680
law of self-defense is not that complicated. In all 50 states, there are literally only five
00:07:24.280
conditions that have to be met to use force and self-defense. And if people take the trouble to
00:07:28.920
learn those five conditions that have to be met, it's not hard for them to stay within the rules.
00:07:34.360
The difficulty is when they don't know what the rules are, they tend to make mistakes,
00:07:37.760
not through malice, not because they're bad people, but through ignorance. And they
00:07:41.540
accidentally step outside those five conditions. And a claim of self-defense is very binary.
00:07:47.460
It's like switch that's either on or off. Either you fall within the rules and you have zero criminal
00:07:52.300
liability for your use of defensive force, or you fall outside the rules. And if you fall outside the
00:07:57.440
rules, whatever your use of force was, it was not self-defense. And you're facing very serious
00:08:02.480
criminal charges and perhaps much of the rest of your life in jail.
00:08:05.800
Okay. So yeah, there's these five factors. And as you said, they usually don't follow them out of
00:08:13.980
ignorance. But as you and I both know, ignorance of the law is no defense. You can't say, well,
00:08:18.820
your honor, I didn't know what the conditions were. That's not going to get you out.
00:08:23.720
Absolutely not. And of course, these five conditions that I mentioned, prosecutors know,
00:08:29.740
obviously what those five conditions are. And all five of them have to be present. When a prosecutor
00:08:35.360
is looking at that investigative report from the detectives that has witness statements and
00:08:40.720
forensics evidence and everything having to do with your use of force, what he's looking for is the
00:08:45.620
ability to defeat one of those five elements. If he can prove it's not there, then your claim of
00:08:50.020
self-defense simply disappears. And the jury will never hear the words, self-defense said in your trial.
00:08:56.420
And this is very awkward. If you're making a claim of self-defense, you're implicitly admitting to the
00:09:03.760
underlying use of force. A claim of self-defense is a claim of admission. In other words, you're saying,
00:09:09.420
yes, it was me who used that force, but I had the legal justification of self-defense. Well, if you lose
00:09:15.120
that legal justification of self-defense, all that's left is your concession. In other words, a confession
00:09:21.540
to the underlying crime. And that becomes a very easy conviction for a prosecutor.
00:09:25.980
Okay. So the book is geared towards individuals who are planning to use a firearm for their
00:09:32.800
self-defense, whether in their home or on their person. But as I was reading through this, I was
00:09:37.040
like, you know, this is probably applicable for people who don't plan on using a firearm or a
00:09:41.560
weapon in self-defense. If you just decide to, I'm going to get in a fight or I'm going to punch
00:09:46.660
somebody like this, this stuff will come up, come into play as well. And it can get you into trouble
00:09:52.300
that you might not think about at the time. So let's, let's walk through the laws of self-defense.
00:09:57.240
So first off, let's talk about, I mean, you've been talking about, you know, prosecutors. That's
00:10:02.300
the realm of the criminal trial world, but there are civil implications of using force in a self-defense
00:10:10.640
situation. So let's talk about this. How do the laws of self-defense differ in civil and criminal cases?
00:10:17.000
I mean, how are the burdens different, for example? Sure. Well, generally speaking, the elements of
00:10:21.820
your defense are the same in criminal court and civil court. What changes is the burden of proof and
00:10:28.400
who has to make that burden of proof. So in a criminal case in 49 states, once you've raised a
00:10:35.680
claim of self-defense, it becomes the responsibility of the prosecutor to disprove your claim of self-defense
00:10:41.340
beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's the biggest thing a good self-defense act has going for it,
00:10:47.600
is the tremendous burden on the prosecutor to disprove that claim of self-defense beyond a
00:10:53.140
reasonable doubt. Now I say 49 states, there's one state in which that's not the case. That's the state
00:10:58.200
of Ohio. In Ohio, if you raise a claim of self-defense, you have to prove that claim by a preponderance
00:11:05.160
or a majority of the evidence, as opposed to the prosecutor having to disprove it beyond a reasonable
00:11:10.460
doubt. Very, very different standard of evidence. In a civil case, if someone accuses you, sues you of
00:11:17.180
having caused them some injury deliberately, and you want to argue self-defense, then you also have
00:11:23.060
to be able to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, much as is required in Ohio in a
00:11:28.820
criminal case. Okay. Oh, and before we go on, I thought we should probably do the obligatory disclaimers.
00:11:35.160
You are an attorney, but we shouldn't, people who are listening, they shouldn't construe this as legal
00:11:39.480
advice. Um, it's information purposes only. Um, I know as my law school days, my ethics class,
00:11:45.880
remember we had to, had a section about this, about legal advice. So obligatory disclaimer right
00:11:50.800
there. So, and with that difference between, um, criminal law and civil law, civil cases, I mean,
00:11:56.920
is there an instance where, you know, you could possibly prove self-defense on a, um, criminal case
00:12:05.860
and, but be found liable in a civil case? Sure. Absolutely. Because in most states to,
00:12:12.640
for your claim of self-defense to be disproven, it has to be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt,
00:12:18.260
meaning not just the majority of the evidence, but a large majority of the evidence has to disprove
00:12:23.120
your claim of self-defense. Let's pretend that means 90% of the evidence, 95% of the evidence.
00:12:28.640
It's not actually a specific number, but it's that order of magnitude that we're talking about
00:12:33.040
for your claim of self-defense to be defeated in a criminal court. In a civil case, on the other
00:12:38.140
hand, to defeat your claim of self-defense, they only have to disprove it by a majority of the
00:12:41.680
evidence, 51% of the evidence, a much easier burden. So it's quite possible that your claim
00:12:47.000
of self-defense will be sustained in a criminal court, not disproven in a criminal court, but easily
00:12:52.000
just in the civil court. And of course, we see this in other contexts all the time. For example,
00:12:55.920
in the, in the well-known OJ Simpson trial, he was accruited in criminal trial. Uh, but then when he
00:13:01.700
was sued civilly, he was easily found liable in civil court. Okay. So yeah, you, just because you
00:13:08.480
get off on a criminal case or, you know, you found, I'm hating saying get off, but, um, you're found,
00:13:14.080
uh, not guilty. Um, and you're able to use self-defense, your, your troubles might not be over.
00:13:19.420
You could still be in court for a civil case and you might have to pay. Absolutely. I mean,
00:13:24.660
the saving grace with most of the civil suit, uh, type of events occurs in states that have some kind
00:13:30.540
of self-defense immunity law, uh, in which if you're found to have acted on lawful self-defense,
00:13:35.240
you're granted immunity from civil suit, uh, in which case you should be sued at all. Uh, but not
00:13:40.100
all states have those and the conditions for qualifying for immunity varies considerably from
00:13:45.480
state to state. Okay. So let's start getting into these elements of, uh, when self-defense is justified,
00:13:52.040
whether using lethal or non-lethal force. Um, so let's start the first one. What's the threshold
00:13:57.940
that must exist in order for you to justify that you were acting in self-defense?
00:14:03.820
Well, for any use of force to be lawful self-defense, it needs to meet five conditions,
00:14:08.700
or I should say up to five conditions, uh, what we call attorneys would call five elements. Uh,
00:14:14.000
and those are innocence, eminence, proportionality, avoidance, and reasonableness. And innocence
00:14:18.760
basically means you must not have been the aggressor in the fight. An aggressor cannot claim self-defense.
00:14:23.840
Sounds obvious enough. Uh, eminence meaning that you were defending yourself against a threat that's
00:14:29.480
about to happen to you right now. So not someone who says, well, I'm going to go home and get a gun
00:14:33.960
and come back and shoot you. That's a future threat. That's not an eminent threat. So you can
00:14:37.960
only defend yourself against an eminent threat. Proportionality means that you can only use as
00:14:42.460
much force as necessary to stop whatever the threat is. So against the non-force threat, someone's
00:14:47.940
just going to shove you. For example, you can use only non-deadly force in self-defense against a
00:14:52.760
deadly force threat. Someone has a knife. You can use deadly force to defend yourself. Um,
00:14:57.640
avoidance has to do with whether or not you have an obligation to try to retreat from the fight,
00:15:01.660
uh, before you can use force in self-defense. Uh, and this is the area that has the biggest
00:15:06.480
variance among the 50 states. Uh, some states impose a legal duty to retreat before you can act in
00:15:12.080
self-defense. Other states, the large majority of states are stand your ground states where you don't
00:15:17.040
have such a legal duty. And the last element is reasonableness. Everything you see, all the
00:15:22.240
decisions you make, everything you do has to have been that of a reasonable and prudent person. If
00:15:27.880
you act unreasonably, then you fail on that particular element. And as I say, these elements
00:15:32.760
are cumulative. They all have to be present. And if any one of them is missing, your claim of
00:15:37.680
self-defense disappears entirely. So that of course is the prosecutor's job to try to destroy one or more
00:15:43.960
of those elements. And your claim is self-defense. The job of your defense attorney is to make sure
00:15:48.420
that they're all present. Okay. So let's talk about some of these elements. Uh, like for example,
00:15:52.160
innocence. Uh, yeah, it's obvious that if you know, if you want to claim self-defense, you ha you can't
00:15:56.240
be the aggressor, the one who initiated the fight. Um, but there's moments in a fight where you might
00:16:04.240
not have been the original aggressor, but you turn into the aggressor and you're no, you can no longer
00:16:08.680
claim self-defense. So can you walk us through some hypotheticals where that you might've been
00:16:12.600
acting in self-defense at first, but as things went on, you're no longer acting in self-defense.
00:16:17.460
Yeah. So people tend to lose on the element of innocence to get in trouble on the element of
00:16:22.020
innocence in one of two ways. Uh, one way, unfortunately is they were in fact the aggressor.
00:16:27.720
Uh, we all think we're the good guys. We would never be the aggressor in a fight,
00:16:31.060
but we all have bad days. And every once in a while, someone acts irrationally and they become
00:16:36.240
the aggressor in a fight, in which case they would not normally qualify for self-defense. Now,
00:16:40.780
having said that there are ways to recover from that kind of mistake, gain your innocence. And
00:16:45.740
I'll touch back on that in a moment. More commonly, how good guys get in trouble on the element of
00:16:50.360
innocence is not that they're actually the aggressor, but they conduct themselves in a way
00:16:54.580
that looks like they were the aggressor or can be made to look as if they were the aggressor.
00:16:59.800
Uh, to give you an example, we had a case in our office where one of our clients was challenged to
00:17:04.740
a fight. They weren't, he was in a bar. These things happen in bars a lot for some reason.
00:17:08.320
Uh, he was challenged to a fight. The other guy went outside taking off his coat. Uh, and our
00:17:13.780
client said, well, this is crazy. I'm not going to fight this guy. I'm not going to stay here. I'm
00:17:16.920
going to go home. And our client walked out the door to go home and the person attacked him and a
00:17:21.820
fight ensued. The police showed up and our client wanted to claim self-defense, but the prosecutor
00:17:26.240
said, well, no, your client was challenged to a fight. And he went out to a fight. If he consented to
00:17:31.160
the fight, then he was a co-aggressor. It wasn't an act of self-defense.
00:17:34.560
The prosecutor was able to do that because what did our client's conduct look like to
00:17:39.920
witnesses in the bar? Our client got challenged to a fight. Our client went outside and got into
00:17:44.580
a fight. It looked like he wanted that to happen. Uh, what our client should have done is gone out
00:17:49.980
a different door, had the bartender call the police, call the police himself, has a cell phone these
00:17:54.820
days, of course. Um, unfortunately, when you act in a way that can be interpreted as if you were the
00:18:00.160
aggressor, you open the door for the prosecutor to argue that you were the aggressor and therefore
00:18:04.500
don't qualify for self-defense. So we always have to be cognizant, not just of what we're
00:18:09.560
actually doing or intending to doing, but how our conduct can be perceived by people who are going
00:18:14.860
to be giving statements to the police, because that's what the prosecutor has made his decision
00:18:18.380
on. Now, in terms of whether or not you were made to look like an aggressor or actually lost your
00:18:22.840
mind and were the aggressor in a particular event, uh, there are ways to regain your innocence.
00:18:28.260
And one way to bring your innocence is to withdraw from the fight, communicate your withdrawal to
00:18:33.220
the other person. So say you bought that brand new sports car you've always wanted. You're driving
00:18:37.920
it the first day and some idiot bangs a shopping cart off in the parking lot and you're enraged and
00:18:42.940
you get out and you shove them. Well, you're the aggressor in that fight. You've started a non-deadly
00:18:48.100
force fight, but if you immediately come to your senses and say, oh my God, what am I doing? Sorry,
00:18:52.220
I don't want to get into a fight. You back off from the fight and he pursues you and re-engages you.
00:18:57.080
What's happened then is you've regained your innocence by withdrawing and now he's the aggressor
00:19:01.360
in a second fight. So that's a way for people who, even if they've acted as the aggressor,
00:19:06.380
it could be made to look as the aggressor can regain their innocence and regain their ability
00:19:10.120
to claim self-defense. Gotcha. And in another situation, so like, I guess you, the example
00:19:14.680
of the bar fight, that's mutual combat, right? That's when you decide, let's take this outside guys.
00:19:19.340
Exactly right. So let's go outside and settle this like men. Uh, those are co-aggressors.
00:19:24.520
Neither one of them can lawfully claim self-defense for their use of force.
00:19:28.740
Right. That is incredibly stupid. It's stupid on many levels, of course,
00:19:32.900
not just the legal level, but the survival level. We all have to keep in mind that just because we're
00:19:37.640
the good doesn't mean we're going to win the fight. Uh, we're all a 50 cent box cutter from sitting on
00:19:43.380
the curb with our hand against our neck and bleeding out because the other guy got in a good shot on us.
00:19:48.340
The fact that we may have been acting lawfully doesn't help you in that circumstance. So
00:19:52.820
I urge all my clients for obvious reasons, not just the legal, but also the survival reasons. You do
00:19:58.280
not want to get into a fight. You absolutely have to, because not only could you end up in legal
00:20:02.740
jeopardy, you could die. Right. Right. And then another instance of where, um, you might start off
00:20:08.900
in self-defense is you're defending yourself, but then the original aggressor decides to flee,
00:20:14.540
but you keep pursuing. And I guess in that instance, you would be right. It's a good point.
00:20:19.780
So I talked about the ability to regain your right to self-defense by withdrawing from the fight. Well,
00:20:25.640
it's not just you who can regain your right to self-defense. That other guy can regain his right
00:20:29.960
to self-defense. So if you're attacked by somebody and you're defending yourself and suddenly he stops
00:20:34.940
fighting, doesn't want to fight anymore, uh, he's regained his innocence. And if you pursue him,
00:20:40.080
you decide you're going to give him some of his medicine. Well, you've just become the aggressor in a
00:20:44.280
second fight. And guess what? Now he can claim self for his use of force against you in that second
00:20:49.520
fight. And you can't. So for Pete's sake, if you're able to separate yourself from a fight, don't do
00:20:54.760
anything that even looks like you're trying to re-engage. Okay. So let's talk about the, uh, the,
00:21:00.880
the proportionality, right? Um, if someone is attacking you with a non-lethal force, you have to use
00:21:08.700
a non-lethal force. Um, someone's using lethal force, you can use lethal force. So what constitutes
00:21:15.440
lethal force? I mean, I obviously a firearm, a knife, but any other situations where lethal force
00:21:21.060
would be like, okay, you could actually use lethal force to defend yourself.
00:21:24.260
Sure. Proportionality is one of the places that is, uh, where people most commonly get into trouble.
00:21:29.360
Good people most commonly get into trouble. Um, when we're talking about proportionality,
00:21:33.260
we're talking about that degree, that intensity of force that's involved in the fight. And as you say,
00:21:38.280
there tend to be two buckets, either non-deadly force or deadly force. And deadly force is any
00:21:43.860
force that can cause death or grave bodily injury. Uh, so for example, a sustained beating, uh, could
00:21:51.280
well qualify as grave bodily injury, meaning you could use deadly force to defend yourself against
00:21:56.900
that. And if the beating wasn't likely to cause death, if it was likely to cause grave bodily injury,
00:22:01.520
that's sufficient to be what the law calls a deadly force threat that you can use deadly force
00:22:06.480
against in self-defense. Uh, obviously a force that can cause death qualifies as a deadly force
00:22:12.340
threat, like a gun or a knife where people tend to get into trouble, uh, is not so much when they're
00:22:17.200
facing a deadly force threat because then they can really use any degree of force to defend themselves.
00:22:21.520
It's when they're facing a deadly force threat and they use a deadly force in self-defense. And
00:22:26.700
unfortunately this happens more and more these days because pretty much every state now has some
00:22:32.340
kind of provision for concealed carry of a firearm. So we have a lot of people who get their concealed
00:22:37.080
carrier permit. They have a gun on their person. Uh, they perceive a threat, they get scared.
00:22:42.560
And unfortunately the only tool of self-defense that they've bothered to carry on their person
00:22:47.920
is that gun. That's it. And they facing a threat that scares them, but in fact is not a deadly force
00:22:55.880
threat. And if you're facing a non-deadly force threat, you're not allowed to use deadly force
00:22:59.640
in self-defense, but because their only tool is a gun, a deadly force means a self-defense. They end
00:23:04.700
up going to the gun and they pull a gun against a non-deadly threat. And if you do that, your use of
00:23:10.180
force was not proportional and you simply don't qualify for self-defense. So one of the things we urge
00:23:15.560
our clients to do, and I do personally, I should mention, I have a carry permit. I've carried a gun
00:23:21.040
every day of my adult life. We're lawfully permitted, of course. Uh, and when I carry a gun, I also carry
00:23:27.380
a non-deadly means of self-defense. Typically for me, it's pepper spray. Uh, but it's very important
00:23:33.260
to be prepared for that non-deadly force attack with a tool other than your gun. In fact, if you look
00:23:38.920
at the FBI statistics, they'll tell you you're five times more likely to be the victim of a non-deadly
00:23:45.000
force attack against which you can't use your gun than against a deadly force attack against which
00:23:50.180
you could use your gun. So if all you have is the gun, you're preparing for actually the less common
00:23:56.240
form of attack you're likely to face. So it's very important if you're going to have a gun or not have
00:24:01.840
a gun, it's very important to make sure you also have some means of non-deadly form of self-defense
00:24:06.260
so that your deadly force, I'm sorry, so that your force and self-defense is proportional to whatever
00:24:11.400
the threat is that you're facing. Right. It reminds me of that phrase, you know,
00:24:15.020
if the only thing you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.
00:24:18.200
And unfortunately, when people don't think this through, they end up facing some non-deadly
00:24:21.700
force threat. They go to the gun and then they're shocked to decide that they're being charged with
00:24:25.560
aggravated assault and that they can't justify that use of the gun as lawful self-defense because
00:24:30.900
it was disproportional to the attack. And then they're facing 10 or 15 years in prison and they
00:24:35.520
legitimately, genuinely, in faith, believe they were acting in lawful self-defense.
00:24:39.380
But because of their ignorance, because they didn't understand the simple rule of having
00:24:43.360
to stay proportional, they put themselves in tremendous legal jeopardy.
00:24:48.040
Okay. And I guess also that would mean that, you know, besides carrying like a non, like a pepper
00:24:53.140
spray, but also, you know, staying physically fit, getting martial art training might also be another
00:24:59.920
way you can train to ensure that you, you know, you stay proportional and when you do have to defend
00:25:08.580
Absolutely. So people who are into martial arts, who train diligently, their bare hands and feet
00:25:14.440
might be more than sufficient non-deadly force tools in self-defense. I do have to caution something
00:25:19.360
about martial arts, however, and that is that we run into this quite a bit. Martial artists believe
00:25:23.980
that as long as they're not using a weapon, then that means as a matter of law, they're not using
00:25:31.040
deadly force. It's really important to keep in mind how the law defines deadly force. It's not just force
00:25:37.360
that can cause death. It's force that can cause death or grave bodily harm. And there are a lot
00:25:42.680
of martial arts techniques that don't cause death, but do cause grave bodily harm. There are joint
00:25:48.320
locks, for example, that can destroy an elbow or destroy your wrist very easily. That would clearly
00:25:53.840
constitute grave bodily harm. And you're not lawfully entitled to use those kinds of martial arts
00:25:58.780
techniques unless you were facing a deadly force threat. So it's very important for martial artists
00:26:04.480
to keep in mind, especially when they have these higher skill sets and they're capable of causing
00:26:08.180
genuinely serious injury, that just because they're not using a weapon doesn't mean that they're not
00:26:13.940
using what the law would call deadly force. Okay. Good caveat there. So let's talk about this. I think
00:26:19.480
this goes to the reasonableness element. Let's say you are mistaken about the deadliness of the force
00:26:28.400
being used against you. For example, let's say you think the guy has a gun, so you shoot him or stab
00:26:34.340
him with your knife, whatever, but he ends up, it doesn't have a gun. What does the law say about
00:26:39.660
using mistaken lethal force in a situation? Yeah, this happens quite a bit, actually. In fact,
00:26:48.660
it happens several times a year just with law enforcement officers where they shoot somebody
00:26:52.920
and it turns out that the bad gun was a toy of some kind or an airsoft pistol. Now, the law of
00:27:00.620
self-defense entitles you to defend yourself against the appearance of a threat, the reasonableness of a
00:27:07.560
threat. You're not expected to make perfect decisions in self-defense. You're expected to make
00:27:12.580
reasonable decisions in self-defense. So if someone displays an object that to a reasonable person
00:27:18.160
looks like a real gun, you're entitled to treat it as if it were a real gun. You're not supposed to
00:27:23.140
take the time to figure out whether or not it could theoretically be a toy. You don't have the time
00:27:28.320
for that, and the law recognizes that. There's a phrase from an old Supreme Court case from 1921 that
00:27:33.560
says, a detached reflection cannot be expected in the presence of an uplifted knife. The law recognizes
00:27:39.820
that under the stress of an attack, you have to make quick decisions. Those decisions don't need to
00:27:44.200
be perfect. They just need to be reasonable. So if you've made a mistake, you thought you were
00:27:48.460
facing a real gun. It turns out to be a toy gun. Literally, you've made a mistake, right? That was a
00:27:53.180
mistake in observation. It doesn't matter if you made a mistake as long as the mistake was a reasonable
00:27:58.720
mistake. Okay. And that's the true both in criminal and civil?
00:28:02.620
Absolutely. Okay. So let's talk about this eminence threshold because I think that can also get people
00:28:12.140
in trouble where in order for you to justify self-defense using either lethal or non-lethal
00:28:17.720
force, the threat has to be eminent. So what does eminent mean? Is it actions or can words or I mean,
00:28:27.240
what's involved in that? Sure. So eminent means the threat's about to happen right now. In the next
00:28:32.560
few moments, you'll suffer the injury unless you don't immediately respond in self-defense.
00:28:38.180
Where people sometimes trouble is someone threatens them with some future harm and they decide, well,
00:28:42.840
I may as well settle this business right now. And they become the aggressor in a fight against which
00:28:47.480
the other threat was not yet eminent. So someone says, I'm going to go get my friends and come back
00:28:51.740
here and beat you up, or I'm going to go get a weapon and come back and beat you up. The law expects
00:28:55.600
you to do something other than immediately use force against that person. You can leave the area,
00:29:00.140
you can call the police, but they don't want you to fight over a future threat. Now there are a number
00:29:08.080
of frameworks that can be used to evaluate whether or not a threat is eminent. The most common one is
00:29:14.460
something called AOJ, ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. And essentially what that means is does
00:29:18.900
the other person have the physical ability to cause you harm? For example, a small child would not
00:29:23.860
typically have the ability to cause a grown man harm. Do they have the opportunity to bring that to bear
00:29:28.180
so they're close enough to strike you with their fist or bat, for example? And are they acting in a
00:29:33.500
way that a reasonable person would perceive that they are about net ability and opportunity to bear
00:29:38.840
against you? When someone has ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, then they constitute an imminent
00:29:44.880
attack. And a good way to illustrate that you need all these elements is just to imagine you see a
00:29:49.640
uniformed police officer in a street corner. He's got a pistol on him, of course. He has ability
00:29:54.520
because he has the gun. He has opportunity because he's close enough, if he wanted to, to shoot you
00:29:58.660
with that gun. But there's no jeopardy. There's nothing to indicate a reasonable person that he's
00:30:02.440
about to use that gun against an innocent person. So without all three of those elements, you don't
00:30:07.540
have an imminent threat. Where people tend to get into trouble is where they're facing a threat that
00:30:12.800
appears genuine, but it's not yet an imminent threat. So for example, you see someone who's an
00:30:17.780
aggressor. He's screaming. He's mad at you for some reason. He's got a bat. He's going to strike you with
00:30:23.560
that bat. I'm going to break your head with this bat, but he's 100 yards away. He can't yet reach
00:30:29.200
you with the bat. So he doesn't have the opportunity to bring that bat to bear. There's ability. He's
00:30:33.520
got the bat. There's jeopardy. He's threatening to kill you, but there's not yet opportunity. Until he
00:30:38.180
gets close enough to bring that bat to bear, he's not yet an imminent threat. And the law requires that
00:30:44.160
you wait until he's an imminent threat before you can use force and self-defense. Now, you don't wait
00:30:48.160
until he can actually strike you, but you have to wait until he, unless you act, he will be able to
00:30:53.240
strike you in the immediate future. And are there any instances where words can be enough or does
00:31:00.280
that have to be words plus actions? So words come up in the context of that jeopardy element. Are
00:31:05.860
they acting in a way that would lead a reasonable person to believe that they are about to attack
00:31:10.360
right now? The law does not like to allow words alone to constitute jeopardy. So if they're literally
00:31:18.500
doing nothing but speaking to you, no action at all, that's never sufficient to constitute jeopardy.
00:31:25.800
So I'm going to beat you. I'm going to shoot you. As long as there's no physical action consistent
00:31:31.640
with that, the words alone are not enough. The law requires some kind of overt act. What the words can do
00:31:37.640
is provide almost all the jeopardy that's required. So the amount of physical action you need to see can be
00:31:44.000
very slight. Someone says, I'm going to shoot you. And then they make a small motion with their hand
00:31:48.860
as if reaching for a gun. That small motion with those words can be enough to justify an imminent
00:31:55.520
threat. The small action by itself would mean nothing absent the words. But what the words have done is
00:32:01.200
reduce the amount of physical action you need into a very, very small amount. The police would call this
00:32:06.860
a furtive movement. The suspect made a furtive movement as if for a weapon. In combination with the
00:32:12.440
words and other factors, then that becomes sufficient for justification. But if all they're
00:32:16.640
doing is speaking, they're not approaching, they're not in proximity, they don't look like they're
00:32:19.880
reaching for a weapon, they're not pulling back a fist. If there's no physical action, there's only
00:32:24.240
words. The words alone are never enough. Okay. So the common law allows individuals to use force
00:32:31.560
to defend themselves. What does the law say about using force to defend others, third parties?
00:32:38.160
Strictly speaking, the law treats defense of others much the same as it treats defense of
00:32:43.720
yourself. In fact, in most states, if you look at the statutes, they simply add a third person pronoun
00:32:48.420
to the self-defense statute. So they'll say, you can force in defense of yourself or another person if,
00:32:54.320
and then they'll list those five elements we've already talked about. Unfortunately, the reality is
00:32:59.500
that coming to the defense of another person tends to be much more complicated from a practical
00:33:04.560
perspective than acting in your own defense, largely because when you're coming to the defense
00:33:09.840
of another person, you often don't know what's really happening. This is particularly true when
00:33:15.900
we're talking about defense of strangers and much less true if we're talking in defense of a family
00:33:20.020
member or a friend or a coworker or somebody we have some familiarity with. Where people tend to get
00:33:25.220
into trouble is when they come to the defense of strangers. Now imagine, for example, that you turn a
00:33:30.200
corner and you see two people fighting, and one of them is clearly losing the fight, looks like the
00:33:35.240
victim of an attack, and you come to that person's defense. Well, unless you saw the start of the
00:33:40.020
fight, you just turned a corner and the fight was already in progress, you actually don't know who began
00:33:46.400
that conflict. You don't know who the aggressor was, and therefore you don't know who would have been
00:33:51.540
entitled to use force in their own defense. And under many circumstances, if someone you rescue would not have
00:33:57.100
been entitled to use force in their own defense, you're not entitled to use force in their defense
00:34:01.480
on their behalf. Because if they weren't the innocent party in the fight, they have no right
00:34:05.460
to self-defense. Therefore, you have no right to use force on their behalf. Because obviously,
00:34:09.720
it's the other person then who is the innocent party in that conflict. So that's one reason people
00:34:15.360
get in trouble is because they come to the rescue of someone when they don't really know what the
00:34:19.420
circumstances are. The other way they get in trouble is they accurately perceive what's happening,
00:34:24.880
and they do in fact come to the view of the innocent person. But then that innocent person
00:34:29.160
doesn't recount the events as they actually happen to the police. And this often happens in domestic
00:34:34.880
violence type of events. So a woman being attacked by some man, you come to her rescue. It turns out
00:34:41.700
they're a couple. He was committing an act of domestic violence on her. But when she realizes that her
00:34:48.220
husband's going to go to jail for a long time, if she tells the police the truth about what happened,
00:34:51.920
her story begins to change. Because she doesn't want him going to jail. And it becomes easier for
00:34:56.760
her to say, it wasn't her husband who started the problem. It was you who started the problem.
00:35:01.580
Now, if the person you rescued is telling the police that it was you who was the aggressor in the fight,
00:35:07.420
what are they supposed to believe? They may very well believe it was you the fight. In which case,
00:35:13.160
you look like the aggressor. And if you look like the aggressor, then you lose on the element of
00:35:16.980
innocence. If you lose on the element of innocence, you don't have a claim of either self-defense or
00:35:21.480
defense of others. So we urge people to have great caution when coming to the defense of other
00:35:26.920
people. It's always possible to be a good witness. Everybody has a cell phone. You can call 911. You
00:35:32.240
can video the intervention. It's not that we're telling people to never intervene. Sometimes you'll
00:35:37.940
see a situation in which you feel a moral compulsion that you have to intervene. It's just the right thing
00:35:42.860
to do. But we want people to understand when they make that decision that to be able to make an
00:35:47.340
informed decision about what the risks are that you're taking, both from a physical and from a
00:35:52.780
So I guess, so from a, if you're trying to, if you're in the defense of third parties, there's no
00:36:01.100
Sometimes. So the way the law is supposed to work is if you perceived an event and you reasonably
00:36:06.980
perceived it and the way your perception was incorrect, you might still be okay. A classic example
00:36:12.640
is you turn a corner and you see a woman being grabbed by a couple of guys and she's screaming,
00:36:17.340
she's being kidnapped and you come to her rescue, you save her. You take your gun out, you point your
00:36:22.700
gun at them. Kidnapping qualifies as a deadly force attack because of inevitably kidnapped victims
00:36:28.940
are subject to death or grave bodily harm. So your gun, you come to, you come to her defense to prevent
00:36:34.440
her kidnapping. And then it turns out she wasn't being kidnapped. She was being subject to lawful
00:36:39.500
arrest by two undercover drug detectives. Now under the law, if there's, there's, there's basically
00:36:49.740
two legal paradigms that can be applied to that scenario. One of them is a reasonable perception
00:36:53.880
paradigm, which is reasonable mistake paradigm. We talked about with the toy gun. You were mistaken
00:36:59.020
about your perception. You thought it was a kidnapping, but you had good reason to believe that because
00:37:03.740
she was shouting that. And it looks like a kidnapping is you made a mistake. It was in fact a lawful
00:37:08.400
arrest. But as long as your mistake was a reasonable mistake, then your use of force on her behalf may
00:37:13.140
still be okay. Unfortunately, there are other states that apply a different paradigm, alter ego
00:37:18.420
paradigm. And under the alter ego paradigm, you assume that person's ego. That's why they call it
00:37:24.840
alter ego. In other words, your right to use force in her defense is no greater right would have been
00:37:30.180
to use force in her own defense. There is no room for reasonable mistakes under this model.
00:37:35.280
Now, in this case, I just described where the woman claimed kidnapping, but actually being subject to
00:37:40.800
a lawful arrest, her right to use force to resist a lawful arrest is zero. Therefore, under an alter
00:37:46.920
ego paradigm, your right to use force on her defense, no matter what she was saying, no matter what it
00:37:51.220
looked like is also zero. And now what you've done is you've just committed aggravated assault against
00:37:56.100
two police officers. And that's not going away. Now, not every state applies alter ego and not every
00:38:02.300
state applies alter ego in every circumstance. But unless you've memorized all 50 states and all
00:38:08.380
the circumstances in which they might apply this, the only prudent assumption to make is that you
00:38:12.720
might be subject to alter ego, in which case you need to be very, very cautious before using force in
00:38:18.620
defense of another person. Okay. So you mentioned this earlier, some of the myths around use of force
00:38:28.100
when defending yourself. And it's in relation to your property, like how much force you, like
00:38:32.600
the threshold that, you know, sometimes people say, well, the threshold lowers when you're in your
00:38:38.020
home or in your car. Is that the case? I mean, what, how do things, how does the law change whether
00:38:44.040
you're in your home or in your car? Does anything change or does it pretty much stay the same?
00:38:48.900
Typically in most states, it changes in the sense that the law gives you extra dispensation to use
00:38:57.540
force in the context of highly defensible properties. And the highly defensible is always
00:39:02.780
at least your home. In some states, it's also your place of business. In some states, it's also your
00:39:07.560
motor vehicle. And normally how they do this is they provide for a legal presumption of reasonable
00:39:13.800
fee. Certain conditions are met. The most common condition is if you're dealing with someone who's
00:39:18.920
a genuine intruder, who's forcibly entered your home, there's very little you can do that is going
00:39:25.160
to get you into legal trouble in dealing with that particular threat. Meaning a genuine intruder who's
00:39:30.460
forcibly entered your home at night. There, the law gives you the broadest dispensation to use force.
00:39:36.340
And now that doesn't mean to imply that you absolutely should use force. And in that circumstance,
00:39:40.280
you have to make the call yourself. But the law will give you the broadest discretion on the use
00:39:46.220
of force in that circumstance. Where people tend to get into trouble is either they're dealing with
00:39:50.900
someone who's not a genuine intruder in the home, or they're dealing with a situation in which they
00:39:58.220
don't qualify for being in their home. For example, what qualifies as your home? In every state,
00:40:04.800
being inside, literally inside the four walls of your home qualifies as being in your home. But what
00:40:09.640
about being on your front porch, or your back porch, or your front yard, or your backyard? Whether or
00:40:14.080
not you're going to get that legal presumption that you were in reasonable fear varies from state to
00:40:18.280
state, depending on how broadly they define the scope of your home. The other way people get in
00:40:23.240
trouble is they're not dealing with a genuine intruder. The person they use force against is
00:40:27.720
someone else who lives in the home. So someone they share an apartment with, or a spouse, for example,
00:40:32.760
or a sibling, or someone they've invited as a guest, either someone who's come to a party,
00:40:38.360
or a maintenance guy they've invited into their home. Often the law will say, well, that person's
00:40:44.500
not actually an intruder. They were invited there. They're lawfully, and therefore, you don't have
00:40:48.560
this extra dispensation to use force. Now, the good thing about someone who's merely a guest is it's
00:40:54.380
very easy to turn a guest into a trespasser, someone who's not lawfully present. You simply tell
00:40:59.460
them to get out. And if they refuse to get out, then they've become a trespasser, and you've
00:41:03.460
regained that extra privilege to use force in self-defense. Okay. And what about use of force
00:41:09.120
in defensive property? Like, say, if someone's trying to steal your car, or you see someone in
00:41:15.020
your, you walk into your garage, you see someone stealing stuff from your garage. What does the law
00:41:19.940
say about using force in those situations? Right. So it's a great question. We really need to
00:41:25.280
distinguish between what we just described, what we just talked about, which is highly
00:41:29.360
defensible forms of property and regular personal. Highly defensible forms of property are typically
00:41:36.020
your home, sometimes your place of business, sometimes your occupied vehicle, a vehicle
00:41:40.560
in which you're present. Outside of that scope, everything else is really personal property.
00:41:46.760
So any item you could pick up and carry around. So for example, you're at a Starbucks and you
00:41:51.520
have your laptop case next to you with your computer in it. Some dude picks it up and tries to run
00:41:56.140
off with it. Take in your personal property. It's got nothing to do with your home, your
00:42:00.660
business, or one of those highly defensible places. In pretty much every state, with one
00:42:06.280
notable exception, you're only allowed to use non-deadly force in defense of personal property,
00:42:13.500
simple tangible property. Even then, there can be further restrictions. Often you'll have to do that
00:42:19.680
if you're in while it's happening or if you're in hot pursuit of the person. In other words,
00:42:23.880
if someone surreptitiously takes your laptop bag and you see them the next day walking down the
00:42:28.580
street with it and it's monogrammed, there's no question that it's yours, you're not allowed to
00:42:32.800
use any degree of force to recover that bag because it's not actually currently happening. You're
00:42:36.960
expected to call the police and let them deal with the situation. People tend to get into trouble
00:42:41.620
with this because they use too much force. They might, for example, go to a gun to protect a piece
00:42:45.560
of personal property. Give my laptop case back. Well, you're not allowed to use deadly force in
00:42:50.200
defense of personal property. So what you just did was commit an aggravated assault with a firearm.
00:42:54.340
You weren't acting within the bounds of the law. Or one of the most common myths in America is that
00:42:58.940
you can threaten someone with deadly force if they're simply trespassing on open land.
00:43:03.940
Open land is not treated as highly the form of property. It's not a home. It's not a place of
00:43:08.320
business. It's not the type of property that provides shelter or protection to people.
00:43:12.180
It's just open land. You can use non-deadly force to remove a simple trespasser from open land,
00:43:19.280
but you can't use deadly force. Now, I mentioned there was one state that has an exception to this.
00:43:24.280
Texas actually has a statute, Penal Code 9.42, that does allow for the deadly force in defense
00:43:31.220
of property. It's the only state that has this kind of provision. But there are a lot of hoops that have
00:43:37.340
to be jumped through in order to qualify. And I would urge people, even if you live in Texas,
00:43:41.680
please don't. Because if you fail to jump through any of the hoops, and it can be complicated to do
00:43:46.800
that kind of analysis while you're in the stress of the moment, if you fail to jump through any of
00:43:50.940
the hoops, you don't qualify for the protection of the suit. And then your use of force was not
00:43:54.900
lawful and you're facing serious legal jeopardy. Okay. So it's personal property. At most, maybe grab
00:44:02.780
the guy. That's it, you know, to get your thing back. But that's about all you want to do. And
00:44:08.080
then go to the police. Or you might be able to use other forms of non-deadly force. So for example,
00:44:13.100
someone stealing your laptop, you might be justified in using pepper spray to come stealing
00:44:17.420
your laptop. That's a non-deadly force of, that's a non-deadly form of force. So you're properly
00:44:24.120
limiting yourself to non-deadly force in defense of that property. What you don't want to do is be in a
00:44:28.500
position where the only tool you have is a gun and you end up going to the gun under circumstances
00:44:32.800
in which it's not justified. Now I can tell you my personal feeling is that I would not be blind to
00:44:40.180
use any degree of force to protect personal property. I mean, I live and die by my laptop.
00:44:44.580
My laptop is basically my office, but I'm very careful to keep it backed up. And I don't think
00:44:50.180
I would want to get a physical, potentially life-threatening fight to protect a piece of
00:44:54.660
property that I could easily replace by going to the Apple store, getting another one, and just
00:45:04.160
Right, right. One of the things I stress to people, Brett, that anytime they're contemplating
00:45:09.780
using force against another person, they have to keep in mind on the physical level, there's no
00:45:14.800
way to reduce the risk to you of a fight to zero. There's always the possibility you could end up
00:45:20.940
seriously injured or dead from a physical fight. And in the legal context, there's no way to reduce
00:45:26.780
the legal risk to zero, even if you do everything right. Because keep in mind, nobody who's going
00:45:32.920
to be judging your conduct, the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, those people
00:45:37.820
were there when you acted in self-defense or in defense of a piece of property. They don't know
00:45:42.080
what really happened. All they know is what the evidence suggests happened. And the evidence might
00:45:46.880
suggest that you did within the bounds of lawful self-defense. They could conclude that mistakenly,
00:45:52.380
but that doesn't matter. If they conclude that you fall outside the rules of the bounds
00:45:56.440
of self-defense, sometimes innocent people get convicted. That's just the way it is.
00:46:00.580
There are mistakes that can happen in the system. So there's no way to reduce the legal risk
00:46:04.360
to zero. And what that means as a practical matter is anytime you get into a physical conflict
00:46:09.700
with somebody, there's a possibility you could be seriously injured or dead. Possibility you
00:46:13.620
can go to jail. You can get convicted and go to jail for a long time. And what I always try to
00:46:18.400
encourage people to think about is what would you be prepared to go to jail for and still have been
00:46:25.520
worth it? So you point a gun at someone who committed an aggravated assault, you could be
00:46:30.520
sentenced to say 10 or 15 years in jail, some states 20 years in jail. Under what circumstances
00:46:35.520
on the last day of that 20th year would you be able to look back and say, you know what,
00:46:39.440
if I had to do it again, I would still do it because it would have been worth it, even knowing I was
00:46:44.140
going to spend 20 years in jail. And if you think about it in that context, it should be a very,
00:46:48.280
very short list of circumstances in which you could say to yourself, it was still worth spending
00:46:53.880
20 years in jail to save your life. So you're not dead. I'd rather be dead in prison than alive
00:46:59.200
outside. I'm sorry. I'd rather be alive in prison than dead outside of prison to save the life of
00:47:04.300
your family. Absolutely. But over a piece of property, are you prepared to spend years of your
00:47:10.960
life in jail over a piece of property? Because that's the risk you're taking when you act in the
00:47:15.340
fence of property, much less someone else's property, much less someone else's security.
00:47:20.880
And when you come to the stranger, you're taking a risk that you could end up spending much of the
00:47:25.020
rest of your life in jail. And frankly, for most of those circumstances, I tend to think to myself,
00:47:31.280
you know, when I became an adult, I got a concealed carry permit. I got a gun. I learned how to use it.
00:47:36.100
I learned what the rules are. I made sure I was proficient. That other person could have done that,
00:47:41.360
but they didn't. And why is their failure to meet that fundamental responsibility suddenly my problem?
00:47:49.040
I'd be most inclined to be a good witness. So people always have to keep in mind that anytime
00:47:53.380
you're thinking about getting engaged in the works against another person, it could cause you serious
00:47:58.180
injury, a lot of time in jail, a lot of money. And you better have been able to tell yourself after
00:48:04.500
the fact that it was worth having done that, or it'll be a pretty sorry state of affairs.
00:48:09.000
Right. I think it's interesting because we've had several, you know, self-defense experts on the
00:48:13.500
podcast before. And it's funny, you know, we'll talk about like different things you can do to
00:48:19.260
prepare, but like all of them, all their advice is like, just avoid the fight. Do whatever you have
00:48:24.640
to do to avoid escalating the conflict and just get out of there. I mean, that's like the number one
00:48:33.020
And those guys are very skilled at what they do. I mean, they're excellent combatives, experts,
00:48:37.560
experts. But the truth is the best way to win a gunfight or a knife fight or any kind of fight
00:48:45.680
Right. So, Andrew, I mean, I thought of this funny hypothetical. I wanted to robot because I
00:48:51.980
remember this from law school days and I think it was torts. And I want to get your take on this.
00:48:57.320
Let's say you're in a situation, you're defending yourself using non-lethal force, you know, say a guy's
00:49:02.200
just punching you. So, you decide to punch back. But through some freak accident, the guy gets
00:49:10.160
bodily like maimed or he dies. You didn't intend that at all. What are the criminal and civil
00:49:18.860
So, I should mention up front, I tend to focus on the criminal aspect of things, less the civil.
00:49:27.520
No, I'm happy to address the civil, but I want to explain why I chose that emphasis. And it's
00:49:33.140
simply because I feel like if I can keep my clients out of jail, they can always make more
00:49:37.080
money. So, to my mind, the civil is rather less important. And especially these days,
00:49:43.140
frankly, when there's a number of organizations out there that offer various forms of kind of
00:49:47.480
self-defense insurance for having acted in self-defense, you can't really get that kind
00:49:52.160
of protection in the criminal context. But normally, if someone attacks you and you use
00:49:58.980
a particular degree of force, the perception of whether or not that degree of force is justified
00:50:02.980
is from your subjective perception of the threat. If it turns out that other person has some
00:50:07.780
unforeseeable weakness, that if you simply punch them in a way that would normally not cause death
00:50:15.040
or grave bodily injury, but they suffer some kind of cerebral hemorrhage because of their inherent
00:50:19.560
weakness, you're not expected to know that. And you're going to be held accountable for that.
00:50:23.960
That's different than if you do something that is foreseeable that would have caused them death
00:50:28.500
or grave bodily harm. So, for example, normally, if someone punches you and you shove them back,
00:50:33.720
that would be a non-deadly force self-defense, perfectly appropriate. But if they're standing on
00:50:39.000
the edge of a cliff and you shove them, you know they're going over the cliff. And that's foreseeable.
00:50:44.380
So, that would be perceived as a lead form of self-defense. It's just a shove, but it's a shove
00:50:48.720
that's foreseeably going to cause them death or grave bodily harm because of other circumstances
00:50:53.480
of which you were aware. But if you weren't aware of them, it's not going to be a cause of liability
00:50:59.500
Gotcha. So, after all that we've talked about, there's through the nuances of self-defense,
00:51:06.000
the legalities of it, how should that change the way people train when defending themselves?
00:51:12.800
Well, it's interesting because, as you can imagine, people come to, we do classes on this
00:51:19.600
for the country. We do 30 or 40 of these a year in pretty much every state. And throughout the whole
00:51:24.800
day of the class, we're basically telling people what I've been saying on this program. Don't get
00:51:28.560
into a fight. If you don't have to, the risks, the physical risks and the legal risks are really
00:51:32.660
tremendous. So, if you can possibly avoid it, avoid it. But people also have to recognize that
00:51:39.520
there may come a point in which you can avoid it. And then you have to fight in order to defend
00:51:45.440
yourself. One of the things we do is rerun people through a shooting simulator, self-defense simulator
00:51:50.700
using a laser pistol and a video of an incident. And sometimes what we see is people are, they've
00:51:56.060
gotten the message of don't fight, don't fight, don't fight. And they're facing this video threat
00:51:59.760
and they don't fight, they don't fight, they don't fight. But they don't fight for so long that the
00:52:03.740
video kills them simulator. And so, what people need to keep in mind is there's a long period in which
00:52:08.900
you don't want to fight. And then when the circumstances are met in which you're legally
00:52:12.620
authorized to fight, you might need to go to 100 miles an hour and fight hard right now.
00:52:18.680
So, what we really are trying to encourage people to do is not simply to tell them not to fight,
00:52:22.780
but make sure they understand the circumstances in which it's not allowed so that they know the
00:52:27.400
circumstances in which it is lawfully fought. So, when they reach that threshold, they don't have
00:52:31.960
to be tentative. They don't, the situation's not ambiguous. They know that now is the time to
00:52:37.000
fight 100% and win that physical conflict. We don't want them to fight before because of all
00:52:42.800
the risks we talked about, but we do want them to fight as rigorously as possible once the law
00:52:50.000
So, it's sounding like, you know, active simulations are probably one of the best ways to do that.
00:52:54.940
Especially simulations that correctly establish kind of the legal elements so that the people are
00:53:00.280
being tested and challenged on knowing when that threshold has been crossed. The key is people
00:53:05.460
can't use force too soon because that's not lawful. We don't want them to use force too late because
00:53:10.640
that means they've lost the physical fight if they use force too late. And if you lose the physical
00:53:14.460
fight, everything else becomes rather less pressing. So, they have to be able to identify under stress
00:53:20.360
what that threshold is when it's been reached so they know when they're allowed to fight.
00:53:25.260
That's why we teach this law of self-defense stuff so people can identify where that threshold is
00:53:29.940
and be able to fight decisively when the law permits it.
00:53:34.180
Awesome. And I guess also training that threshold, right? Making sure you're not using lethal force
00:53:41.520
Absolutely. And this is, by the way, something that, you know, we tell people when they buy our
00:53:46.220
book, for example, don't just read the book cover to cover and think that you're done. This is a
00:53:51.160
lifelong pursuit. Just like when you own a firearm, you don't, responsible people don't just go out,
00:53:56.360
buy a gun, throw it in the nightstand and consider themselves done. You practice with it. You dry
00:54:01.220
fire with it. You make sure that you maintain your proficiency. That applies to this legal knowledge
00:54:05.900
too. We encourage people when they read about a self-defense event in the newspaper, on TV,
00:54:11.420
on the internet, apply the knowledge they've acquired from the book or our classes. Look for
00:54:15.920
those five elements. Try to figure out where a person could have done a better job. Could they have
00:54:20.120
made their self-defense stronger? What did they do that weakened their claim of self-defense?
00:54:24.800
Were they in a position when they used force to be legally entitled to use that force? It's a kind
00:54:29.860
of mental dry firing in the legal context. When you're under stress, you need to be able to make
00:54:35.000
these decisions quickly. So you want that knowledge to be fresh and actionable in your mind.
00:54:39.920
Awesome. Well, Andrew, this has been a great conversation. Where can people learn more about
00:54:44.520
The best way to learn about our book and our work is at our website. It's simple,
00:54:48.900
www.lawofselfdefense.com. As I mentioned, we do classes all over the country.
00:54:54.800
We have an instructor's program. We have, of course, the book and all kinds of ways that
00:54:58.900
people can access this information. Awesome. Well, Andrew Branca,
00:55:01.660
thank you so much for your time. It's been a pleasure.
00:55:04.760
My guest today is Andrew Branca. He's the author of the book,
00:55:06.800
The Law of Self-Defense. It's available on amazon.com. Also check out Andrew's website,
00:55:10.760
lawofselfdefense.com, where you find more information about his work. And finally,
00:55:14.180
check out our show notes at aom.is slash self-defense law,
00:55:17.840
where you can find links to resources where we can delve deeper into this topic.
00:55:20.120
Well, that wraps up another edition of the Art of Manliness podcast. For more manly tips and
00:55:35.100
advice, make sure to check out the Art of Manliness website at artofmanliness.com.
00:55:38.420
Our show is edited by Creative Audio Lab here in Tulsa, Oklahoma. If you have any audio editing
00:55:42.160
needs or audio production needs, check them out at creativeaudiolab.com. As always, we appreciate
00:55:47.100
your continued support. And until next time, this is Brett McKay telling you to stay manly.