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 welcomes Dr. Paul Taylor onto the Guardian Mindset Podcast to discuss his experience working in law enforcement and considerations for improving practices and...
Episode Overview: In this episode, Attorney Eric Daigle provides a detailed exploration of "excited delirium," a term with deep roots in law enforcement and...
In this episode, Eric examines the actions and efforts of General William Westmoreland during the Vietnam War as an example of evaluation and refinement...