The Logical Lawyer

When does government action cross the line into civil liability? In this provocative episode, Bernie and Jesse discuss negligence versus intentional torts, and whether actions by agencies like ICE raise civil rights questions. Bernie unpacks  the legal distinction between criminal conduct and civil violations, and why someone can be acquitted in criminal court but still lose in civil court.

Using real-world examples, including high-profile cases, Bernie explores how plaintiffs pursue damages against powerful entities, what “deep pockets” mean in litigation, and how civil rights lawsuits operate. This conversation moves beyond headlines into the mechanics of legal accountability.

If you want to understand how tort law intersects with government power and civil rights, this episode is essential listening, because Bernie, The Logical Lawyer, makes it plain.

Tap in now and join the conversation.

Can something be real if it can’t be replicated? Bernie Brown approaches supernatural claims the way a jury approaches a verdict, weighing circumstantial evidence, witness credibility, and personal experience. Jesse presses him: what standard applies when science says “unproven” but testimony says “undeniable”? From spirits and telepathy to premonitions that precede tragedy, this episode dissects the limits of replication and the power of personal conviction. The conversation doesn’t mock belief, it examines it with discipline and logic. The real insight emerges when Bernie admits the tension: you can believe someone is sincere without being certain their interpretation is correct. That distinction is gold in today’s culture of instant certainty. If you’ve ever wrestled with unexplained experiences but refuse to abandon logic, this conversation was built for you. Listen and send it to someone who believes in something they can’t fully explain. It's The Logical Lawyer Bernie Brown!

Everybody repeats “reasonable force” like it’s a clear rule. It isn’t. Bernie explains why that phrase is the legal battlefield where self-defense cases are won or destroyed. In this episode, he breaks down how prosecutors and jurors reconstruct a moment you lived in seconds, then judge it with slow, clinical hindsight. Jesse pushes with real scenarios—slaps, pushes, punches—and Bernie shows how quickly a “fair response” turns into an unlawful escalation if you introduce deadly force too soon. The real tension is this: the law doesn’t measure your fear, it measures your choices under pressure. Bernie also explains why “it felt necessary” is not the same as “it was legally justified,” and how small details—distance, movement, opportunity to disengage, prior conduct—can shift a case from justified to charged. If you want to understand the difference between surviving an encounter and surviving the courtroom, listen now and share this episode with someone who needs the truth before they learn it the hard way.

The streets move fast, but court rulings can shake systems harder. Jesse and Bernie break down what happens when alleged rights violations become lawsuits, motions to dismiss, and high-impact decisions that ripple through the entire legal community. Bernie explains why early dismissals for lack of sufficient evidence can trigger a chain reaction: more dismissals, more civil claims, and huge financial exposure. He also explains a key strategic detail: why prosecutors may use grand juries as a buffer, and how judges still become the critical gatekeepers later when the case is challenged head-on. Jesse connects the legal mechanics to the cultural moment, when people are being urged to stop being scared and start filing claims. The conflict is accountability versus impunity, and the stakes include money, precedent, and public trust. The payoff is hope with teeth: legal pressure can force change when public outrage alone doesn’t. Listen now, then share this with someone who thinks lawsuits don’t matter.

Truth does not always travel fastest online, momentum does. Jesse and Bernie dig into how algorithms amplify emotion, conflict, and outrage, often without regard for accuracy or consequence. Bernie explains why exposure to extreme or opposing content can be informative, even when flawed, because it reveals patterns of thinking and intent. Jesse warns that algorithms shape behavior quietly, nudging beliefs and reactions before people realize what’s happening. The conflict lies in agency: are users choosing content, or is content choosing them. The stakes are psychological and social, as unchecked amplification can harden divisions and normalize hostility. This episode helps listeners understand how digital systems reward repetition, not reflection, and why conscious engagement is essential. If you’ve ever wondered why your feed feels more intense than real life, this conversation will connect the dots. Listen carefully, then share it with someone who thinks algorithms are harmless.