So a video is making the rounds of the internets in which a police officer responding to a noise complaint is standing just inside the doorway of a home while the female homeowner shouts at him to get out of her house.

The officer refuses, makes a bunch of zany claims—such as “I own your house now”—and ultimately places the woman under arrest and handcuffs her.

Could this possibly be lawful conduct on the part of the officer? There are, in fact, a number of conditions in which a police officer can lawfully enter your home, with or without your permission—but does this video demonstrate any of those?

In today’s show we discuss the major categories of circumstances in which the police can lawfully enter your home—see if any of them apply to this video—and then discuss what your legal and practical options are to lawfully prevent police from entering your home unlawfully.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

NFL wide receiver Tyreek Hill is clocked speeding by police and pulled over. Once stopped police see he’s also not wearing his seatbelt. That’s two driving infractions right there—but that’s not enough for Hill.

Hill also decides to be unlawfully non-compliant with lawful orders given by the police for purposes of safety, to the point where the police must compel compliance by dragging him from his car, detaining him, cuffing him, and sitting him down on the sidewalk.

The bad actor in all this? I’d say that’s Tyreek Hill—but of course, a large swath of the internet disagrees with me, as usual.

Join me to learn & discuss the legal realities of traffic stops and obligatory compliance with police orders!

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[If you'd like immediate and early access to Law of Self Defense content, consider becoming a Law of Self Defense Member for just 99¢ here --- https://lawofselfdefense.com/trial]

You’re driving along, your wife in the passenger seat beside you, when a car cuts you off. That driver jumps out with a GUN in HAND as he angrily approaches your vehicle, spewing profanities. You’ve got your own gun in hand, as well.

What do YOU do? Shoot that guy in the face? Attempt to back away? Just be patient?

Join us today as we take a look at this video and discuss our tactical and legal options!

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Today we’re going to take a look at a video of a fatal shooting out of Cincinnati OH that many on the internets are characterizing as obvious self-defense, but where state prosecutors have charged as murder—and the prosecutors here are probably right, on the legal merits.

The reason this killing is likely unlawful rests on the element Innocence, one of the elements required for a valid claim of self-defense. Innocence requires that the person claiming self-defense was not the initial aggressor in the fight—obviously--and, ALSO, that they did not provoke the OTHER person into being the initial aggressor in order to have an excuse to kill them and claim it was self-defense.

And THAT’s the problem in this shooting. Let’s go take a look at the video, and discuss what makes this killing likely a crime.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The Second Amendment secures our right to keep and bear arms—at least when it’s not being neutered by home-grown fascists--but does it secure a right to be STUPID with a gun?

Join me to watch an utter absence of common sense when it comes to exercising Second Amendment rights, in this particular case while lounging by a swimming pool of all places.

As an added bonus, watch even all the people WITHOUT a gun at the pool also strive to achieve maximum stupidity.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A Davenport, Iowa police officer shoots dead a 2-year-old Labrador in front of the dog’s family—including the mother, young child, and a young cousin. The officer was never bit, or even so much as scratched, by the dog.

Did the officer simply EXECUTE this poor dog? Could there be ANY legal justification for this officer’s use of deadly force to kill a family pet?

The legal answer, like it or not, is that YES, this shooting of the dog was legally justified.

Anyone not uncontrollably subject to neurotic hysteria regarding this event, and capable of engaging their powers of reason and having a mind open to actual to law, facts, and reasoned analysis, is invited to join me LIVE at 11 AM ET to discuss!

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"

Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/freebook

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

A white police officer shoots a fleeing black suspect—Malachi Williams--in the back, at a moment where the suspect presents no immediate threat to the officer.

Worse, the officer’s body worn camera footage shows no apparent indication that the suspect was armed.

Is this police shooting of a fleeing, apparently unarmed, black suspect in the back yet another example of police systemic racism and excessive force?

The answer is no—because, as usual, the devil is in the details.

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"

Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/freebook

Today's LIVE show is in response to the video posted on August 25 by the channel "Washington Gun Law" (Attorney William Kirk) regarding the shooting death of Roger Fortson by a Florida deputy back in May.

The deputy was responding to reports of an apparently violent domestic violence complaint when Fortson responded to the door knock with a gun in hand--at which point the deputy shot Fortson.

Kirk had previously concluded that the shooting of Fortson was an outright execution for Fortson having merely exercised his Second Amendment rights.

I critiqued Kirk's conclusion that the Fortson shooting was an outright execution on the basis that (despite claiming to be a criminal defense attorney providing legal analysis) he never made a single reference to any relevant Florida use-of-force law whatever, nor entertained any legal argument that might favor the deputy who shot Fortson.

It is frankly unimaginable to me that a criminal defense attorney can offer a legal analysis to the public on a use-of-event of high public interest and controversy without even once considering the likely defendant's legal defenses.

In my own critique I made actual use of the relevant Florida law that, combined with the facts available, provides a sound foundation for the legal conclusion that the deputy's shooting of Fortson was lawful, if awful.

The Kirk video we'll be taking a look at today is apparently in part a response to my critique.

Full disclosure: I have not myself watched this Attorney Kirk video, so I'll be seeing it for the first time during today's live stream.

So join me for my own LIVE response to Kirk's latest video in this series at 1PM ET!

In the interests of full transparency, here's my previous LOSD legal analysis of this unfortunate shooting (along with WGL content links):

LOSD: REAL LAWYER | The Roger Fortson Shooting: Awful? Lawful? Both? (5/13/24)
https://youtube.com/live/Zy1xcbAU2l0

WGL: The Florida Man Who Was Executed for Exercising His Constitutional Rights (5/13/24)
https://youtu.be/IWepSw11YiA?si=hO7QaGkgk1QbgflQ

LOSD: Sound Legal Analysis, or Shameful Misinformation? (5/15/24)
https://www.youtube.com/live/JEf63eHv0ac?si=dnHROCOoL2N1pFPZ

WGL: Charges Filed Against the Deputy Who Ended This Man's Life Because He Was Armed (8/25/24)
https://youtu.be/BPN8V2SgUkE?si=onqmYu0nW4j6SepR

#rogerfortson

THERE IS ONLY ONE SELF-DEFENSE "INSURANCE" PROVIDER I TRUST!

There are lots of self-defense "insurance" companies out there. Some are hot garbage. Some have limited resources. Some are simply, in my view, untrustworthy. But there is ONE that I PERSONALLY TRUST to protect myself and my family.

LEARN which ONE I TRUST by clicking HERE:

https://lawofselfdefense.com/trust

Disclaimer - Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice you must retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"

Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/freebook

"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"
-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation)

The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us t