I'm Alice and I'm Brett and this is the prosecutor's legal police. Oh, Welcome back to legal briefs. I'm your host Alice and I'm joined as always with my

stupendous co-host Brett. Hello Alice, it's a pleasure as always to talk to you tonight.

I have missed you so much.

I really miss you.

So I mean this is like week two, day five really of us not working side by side at work and it's really

sad basically what I do every day is I text Brett incessantly to ask how he's doing and then to ask if he wants to record at night.

So, you know, I just become more annoying of a co-host.

And I just ignore her because I'm bitter.

Bitter and angry that she left me but it's okay. Now hold the grudge.

I hold the grudge. No, no. We just share one job together instead of two now.

I've had several people who are prosecutors

reach out, you know, say that they're willing to replace you if I need another

prosecutor in the way. It hurts but it's deserved. We're going to hold on to Alice.

We're going to Alice.

Well, you know, kind of along those lines of, you know, being angry, Brett.

Today we have a very interesting topic and that's the law of self-defense. And when you can

use it, when it's justified, and is there ever a time when it crosses the line to being where you're the offender instead of the

self-defender.

So this is all very interesting and it comes up a lot in defenses but in reality it's actually employed less than I think you'd actually think in real cases.

Yeah, it's interesting. I mean number one I would say there's a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about this topic.

We talked about it all the way back at the beginning of our other podcast, the

Billy Woodward case had an element of self-defense in it and this what we're going to talk

...