You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
💪 Tough GuysDalton 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.
I think we're witnessing a corollary of Coulter's law; the longer it takes to release the surveillance video, the higher the probability that chud appears to have acted in genuine self defense.
Is there a full video of his bond hearing yesterday? The chopped up news anchor soundbite clips are insufficient. Please prove me wrong, but it's concerning that the authorities: won't release surveillance footage, won't release full unedited recordings of the bond hearing despite having cameras in the courtroom, have gagged chud so that neither he nor his representatives can publicly challenge the narrative, are doing everything they can to prevent anybody from posting his bond, and they're apparently doing it all in the name of protecting his right to a fair trial. To top it all off, he can only fight back through his cuck attorney whose first act of representing him was to publicly disavow him.
Christ I haven't encountered redditisms like this in a while. He has the maturity of a late-stage adolescent but the dated comedic palette of someone in their 30s, or perhaps even early 40s. What a faggot. If you don't have any decent jokes in the back pocket, just say nigger and call it a day.
I know you're just doing that faggy thing where you pretend no to understand very simple things but I was talking about the perception from you idiots about how blacks get let off for murdering whites all the time. The prisons are full of black people so I don't really think they slip through the cracks of the justice system all that much.
The Iryna killing, guy is getting let off for "insanity", shouted "I got dat white gurl", Gary Edwards stabbed and killed a white guy for no reason, during the killing the guy called him a nigger, after he got stabbed, Gary was let off because of that.
I'm tired of this disingenuous "what if they use it against us?"
Oh maybe you're just legitimately stupid and not pretending to be stupid like I thought.
Decarlos Dejuan Brown has not been "let off" for murdering Iryna. He is institutionalized and once he is found to be competent he will stand trial for murder.
Gary Edwards didn't kill anyone, he wounded a man with a knife that sprung up and attacked him, claiming self defense. Whoopsie! Kinda sounds really similar to Chud's rather weak explanation for his actions, huh?
So you really picked two very bad examples. Do better.
I think we're witnessing a corollary of Coulter's law; the longer it takes to release the surveillance video, the higher the probability that chud appears to have acted in genuine self defense.
Is there a full video of his bond hearing yesterday? The chopped up news anchor soundbite clips are insufficient. Please prove me wrong, but it's concerning that the authorities: won't release surveillance footage, won't release full unedited recordings of the bond hearing despite having cameras in the courtroom, have gagged chud so that neither he nor his representatives can publicly challenge the narrative, are doing everything they can to prevent anybody from posting his bond, and they're apparently doing it all in the name of protecting his right to a fair trial. To top it all off, he can only fight back through his cuck attorney whose first act of representing him was to publicly disavow him.
Drop the tinfoil hat, brother. Even if the raw, unedited footage is againts everything you believe to be true, you won't change your mind because you already made up your mind. Chud is lucky that the court didn't charge him with conspiracy to murder after all the shit he talked online and the eerily identical details to what happened.
it's not really an equivalent case since the person shot was walking away (likely the biggest factor in the guilty verdict regardless of what the prosecutors argued in regards to whether or not saying "nigger" voids self-defense), it was more of an example of an altercation that started because someone was called a nigger who would go on and commit assault and then get shot in self-defense.
The biggest thing I feel like a lot of posters in this thread have been failing to get their heads around is that even if the Black did attack him over an insult, (which the newer stuff I've seen suggests Chud drew first) the reasonable action to take is not to immediately magdump him. There is no good reason to immediately pump someone full of lead unless they're threatening you with a weapon. If an unarmed person is getting confrontational, and you feel threatened, you draw, tell them to back down, and only fire if they do not back down, and honestly, beyond that, if you're able, you should take non-lethal shots.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
