Does freedom of speech shield menacing threats? Or does the law have the right to step in when verbal threats instill fear and potential harm? We found ourselves in a labyrinth of these questions in our latest episode, guided by the landmark Supreme Court decision on Counterman versus Colorado. We unwind the intricate layers of defining a threat, especially in this digital age, where threats can be disguised behind the veil of anonymity. We weigh the subjective intent of the speaker against the objective perspective of a reasonable person and question which should hold more weight in legally certifying a threat.
Eric interviews Chief Tom Stone (ret.) on his four decades of experience in public safety, focusing on his involvement as a founding member, president,...
Recording police has become a contentious issue in recent years, as civilians seek to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. In this podcast...
Attorney Eric Daigle introduces himself and discusses how the Guardian Mindset was developed to improve the principles that law enforcement, corrections, fire, and EMS...
