💪 Tough Guys Dalton Levi Eatherly / Chud the Builder / ChudTheBuilder - Putting the hard r in retard. IRL streamer who provokes confrontations with Tennessee blacks and shot a guy while streaming.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Free Chud?

  • Free him, he a good boy who dindu nuffin

    Votes: 125 39.2%

  • Enjoy prison, Chud

    Votes: 194 60.8%
  • Total voters
    319
drammamean said:
We already have the precedent that you're allowed to shoot people who take a swing at you, that is what stand your ground means.
Click to expand...
drammamean said:
The idea that you have to let someone just tee off on you before retaliating with "equal or proportionate measure" is just absurd if you think about it even for a second, it only takes one punch to knock someone out and for their head to hit concrete, killing them.
Click to expand...
At a glance, Tennessee case law doesn't bode well for the general idea of using deadly force in defense of oneself against an unarmed assailant who's not actively killing you. Tennessee v. Benson

"After the State's proof, counsel for the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. At that time, the defense also submitted that there was already a basis to justify giving a self-defense instruction to the jury. Defense counsel asserted that the State's proof showed that the victim had been the first aggressor, which caused a chain reaction leading to her being shot. The State, however, argued that simply because the victim may have been the first one to throw a punch did not necessarily justify the defendant shooting her five times. The trial court agreed with the State, finding that to use deadly force against the victim, the defendant must have had a reasonable belief of death or serious bodily injury caused by the victim. Regarding the allegation that the victim was the first aggressor, the trial court noted that Tennessee case law generally holds that self-defense is not available to a defendant who provoked or consented to the danger. The trial court found that, even taking the defendant's statement to the police as wholly true, there was no question that the victim was unarmed at the time she was killed, and there was no indication that the victim ever threatened or attempted to use unlawful deadly force against the defendant or caused or threatened to cause serious bodily injury to the defendant. The trial court further concluded that getting punched in the nose is not “serious bodily injury.” Therefore, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to submit a self-defense instruction to the jury by finding that self-defense had not yet been “fairly raised” by the proof."
It's late, I'll do a more thorough look on Lexis tomorrow for Tennessee cases like this, but this line of reasoning was ultimately upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court. I'm aware of the "eggshell skull" theory you're referencing but as far as I'm aware that's not the sort of argument the courts tend to go for, and it's ultimately case law that denotes what the law is in practice.
 
The Projects said:
and honestly, beyond that, if you're able, you should take non-lethal shots.
Click to expand...
This is bad advice. There's really no such thing with any reliability. Shoot someone in the legs? There's certain major arteries there, hit them and they're dead within half a minute. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. You can actually hurt yourself doing such things because opposing council can make the argument that you weren't really in fear for your life if you're collected enough to attempt such a thing. You shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all (really, don't even draw at all).
 
Active User said:
This is bad advice. There's really no such thing with any reliability. Shoot someone in the legs? There's certain major arteries there, hit them and they're dead within half a minute. Legally speaking, there is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. You can actually hurt yourself doing such things because opposing council can make the argument that you weren't really in fear for your life if you're collected enough to attempt such a thing. You shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all (really, don't even draw at all).
Click to expand...
I see your point, as the simple act of shooting someone is lethal force regardless of where you aim, but I must contend that a shot in the leg or the shoulder is much more survivable than a shot between the eyes, no?

That being said, I agree with your sentiment, all shots are indeed potentially lethal, and I personally advocate for avoiding the use of guns in almost all cases. My belief in attempting a less lethal shot is my own, and nobody reading this should take that opinion as legal advice! I hope, however, we can both agree that principled and responsible gun use is important, and people should attempt non-violent resolutions before resorting to violence, whether armed or unarmed.
 
Last edited:
Poster I cooked up with AI.

b18137b3-0884-452d-8de6-3b8065981731.png

Original Give Send Go. Link

New Give Send Go for legal expenses. Link

chud10kdonation.jpg
 
Active User said:
defense is not available to a defendant who provoked or consented to the danger.
Click to expand...

And the cops at the scene even wrote in their notations UNDER OATH that the confrontation didn’t turn physical until chud tried to pull his gun. The fucking cops at the scene of the crime said it was chuds fault any of this happened at all.

When you have greasy southern cops saying that the young white man started it and made it physical….. then you’re in trouble.

I was skeptical that Chud might actually walk free until I knew the cops were even pointing their fingers at him and testifying on paper that it was Chud who caused this….. that was a oh fuck it’s really over moment.
 
anon101x said:
There’s a second one?
Why is there a second one……
I don’t get it.
Why does he need two? lol
Click to expand...
The first was created a long time ago by chudthebuilder when he first became controversial, canceled and lost his job.

It appears the second was created by chudthebuilder's babies mother to help him pay for legal fees from recent arrest for shooting.

Also of note the person who made chuds second givesendgo claims the first givesendgo was attached to a bank account that was closed after his arrest so he does not have access to those funds.
 
Layton Mysteries said:
Portuguese actually, NOS is apparently a Portuguese only cellular provider.
Click to expand...
It's pretty cozy here. Nice quiet life, not much happens and that's how I like it.
Drip Torch said:
No one is going to rape Dalton. He is just going to be put into racial sensitivity training. Just so happens, the instructor is Tyrone and class is in the prison shower.
Click to expand...
I mean, is it rape if he enjoys it? 🤔
 
Active User said:
You shoot to kill or you don't shoot at all
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with your post but my autism requires that I mention this: you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat. You aim center of mass for the best chance of hitting your intended target, the best chance of stopping the threat, and the smallest chance of missing your target and hitting an innocent bystander. You're not trying to kill somebody, you're trying to stop them from ____________. The fact that they might die from your gunshot just happens to be less important than stopping whatever it is they are trying to do.

Active User said:
Tennessee v. Benson
Click to expand...
Interesting case. I would point out that chud's case can be distinguished because the core facts are very different. In this case, the defendant repeatedly pestered a 5'2" 127lb woman for oral sex, which she repeatedly declined. After doing this about 3 times, physically grabbing her head at one point, she punched him in the nose which caused his nose to bleed. He then pulled out a gun and shot her 5 times, including twice in the back. Chud's scenario, until video evidence is released that proves otherwise, was that he was punched and headlocked by a full-grown male army veteran while trying to walk away (yes, probably after calling him a nigger and asking if he was going to chimp out, which is what will ultimately doom him). I do think that the provocation question is going to go to the jury and they will ultimately find that chud "provoked the danger."

anon101x said:
And the cops at the scene even wrote in their notations UNDER OATH that the confrontation didn’t turn physical until chud tried to pull his gun. The fucking cops at the scene of the crime said it was chuds fault any of this happened at all.
Click to expand...
Come on, that is not actually what was said. The affidavit was intentionally vague, and this is the perfect example of why the video needs to be released. Both the surveillance video, and the entire hearing. The best version of events that is supported by the affidavit and reporting from the hearing is that chud was walking away, then put his hand in his pocket as fox approached (reaching), then fox punched him, then he drew his gun, then fox put him in a headlock, and then he finally began to shoot. Important: "reaching" for a gun is not pulling it, drawing it, flashing it, brandishing it, etc. A cop is not going to mince words here. If chud pulled his gun before being hit, we wouldn't stop hearing about it. The fact that they won't just say this clearly and unambiguously should tell you all you need to know.
 
God's Gayest Retard said:
The fact that they won't just say this clearly and unambiguously should tell you all you need to know.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you somewhat the cops are clearly saying he intended to pull the gun.
He reached for it in a bladed stance and was doing it before it turned physical.

“Eatherly and another man, identified as Joshua Fox, got into a verbal confrontation. Then, at this point, Eatherly ‘turned his body in a bladed stance’ and reached for a firearm in his jacket pocket. ‘Thereafter, a physical altercation ensued,’ said the warrant.”

i wouldn’t call this vague.
I’m not really sure where you’re getting the headlock stuff from

His attorney is arguing that there was a headlock. But from the cops and cameras that have actually witnessed the event - nothing has collaborated that outside chud and his attorney just making shit up.

No witness, cameras, or cops saw a headlock
 
anon101x said:
I’m not really sure where you’re getting the headlock stuff from
Click to expand...
The headlock thing seems to be coming from the defense, most other reports don't mention it. It's annoying to wait but we really need to see the videos ourselves since witness statements and initial reports are all going to be a bit unreliable.

Homeboy Bob Proctor said:
https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/clarksville/chud-the-builder-bond-hearing-2/
An investigator testified that surveillance video from the courthouse showed Eatherly approach a man with a selfie stick before walking away. The defense said the man was then seen grabbing Eatherly and placing him in a headlock before shots were fired.
Click to expand...
 
anon101x said:
While I agree with you somewhat the cops are clearly saying he intended to pull the gun.
He reached for it in a bladed stance and was doing it before it turned physical.

“Eatherly and another man, identified as Joshua Fox, got into a verbal confrontation. Then, at this point, Eatherly ‘turned his body in a bladed stance’ and reached for a firearm in his jacket pocket. ‘Thereafter, a physical altercation ensued,’ said the warrant.”

i wouldn’t call this vague.
I’m not really sure where you’re getting the headlock stuff from

His attorney is arguing that there was a headlock. But from the cops and cameras that have actually witnessed the event - nothing has collaborated that outside chud and his attorney just making shit up.

No witness, cameras, or cops saw a headlock
Click to expand...
I am too tired to link sources right now but I'm enjoying the good faith conversation. Part of the problem is we have to rely on inconsistent reporting to find out what was really said in the hearing. I would point out that your quote is a quote from a reporter's article. There are a lot of reporters writing a lot of articles about this, and they don't all say the same thing. It would really be nice if we could just watch the actual proceeding. I believe the cop who watched all 12 videos and took the stand "couldn't recall" whether there was a headlock or not. He would have been an experienced cop working in an investigative role, and he would understand all of this and more: he's on the stand to answer questions from the attorneys. His answers are evidence, in the strictest technical legal meaning of the word. His job is to buttfuck the evil racist, not to help him.

Which brings us to the defense attorney, who has already established that he is at least a bit of a lefty. The one thing you can take to the bank about this guy is he is not going to lie for chud, he won't muddy the waters for chud, he won't pull a single dirty lawyer trick for chud. If this guy is asking the cop about a headlock, there was probably a headlock. The fact that the cop said he didn't recall is telling. He's an investigator, he watched all 12 angles of camera footage, and he can't remember if there's a headlock? This is cop for " well yeah there was a headlock, but if I say yes then I'm creating good evidence for chud, but if I say no I'm perjuring myself, so I'll just go with the good ol' safe 'I don't recall.'

This all smells so bad that I bet there will be a request for a Franks hearing about it at some point.
 
God's Gayest Retard said:
I believe the cop who watched all 12 videos and took the stand "couldn't recall" whether there was a headlock or not. He would have been an experienced cop working in an investigative role, and he would understand all of this and more: he's on the stand to answer questions from the attorneys. His answers are evidence, in the strictest technical legal meaning of the word. His job is to buttfuck the evil racist, not to help him.
Click to expand...
Did George Droid incident not teaching you anything? American cops have more nigger blood on their hands more than any KKK wannabe. When they tell you "yeah you are fucked, buddy", that is when things went seriously wrong for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom