💪 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.

[Layton Mysteries]

It says that any force must be proportional and to deploy deadly force it needs to be such that a reasonable person would feel you are in fear of your life or great bodily harm.

Source? The Tennessee self defense law I can find doesn't once say "proportional".
Instead, it says this:

(b)

• (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
• (2)Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
  • (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse;
  • (B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
  • (C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
• (3) For purposes of this subsection (b), a person is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor or in a place where the person does not have a right to be if the person is engaged in the activity or in the place due to the person's status as a victim of human trafficking. The person must prove the person's status as a victim of human trafficking by clear and convincing evidence. The person may provide clear and convincing evidence of the person's status as a victim of human trafficking through testimony.

https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-39/chapter-11/part-6/section-39-11-611/

The most relevant part here seems to be (b) (1), since he was responding to another's use of unlawful force. It simply says that someone has the right to use force that they reasonably believe to be necessary to prevent another's use of unlawful force against them. Shooting a guy who grabbed and was punching him in the head seems very reasonable to me.

It's right there under 2A dumbass it's almost exactly what I said.

In reply to your post (don't want to spam the thread) (b)(2)(a) doesn't say proportional. It just says that you must have reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of serious bodily harm. If you think being grabbed and having an angry dude punch you in the face doesn't make you think you are in imminent danger of that, I don't know what to say to you.
My point is that the law doesn't support your idea that if someone is attacking you you have to respond back in means equal or less deadly to those they are using. That isn't part of this law.

---

Doing time for a criminal act is not prescribing death. Like I said somehow you think that anyone a shade darker than you are is out to kill you.

By "prescribing death", he seems to be referring to you suggesting he should just sit there and take the punches or gamble on a fistfight and potentially end up with brain injuries or dead rather than use his weapon for self defense.

 

[Dafuqisdis?]

Source? The Tennessee self defense law I can find doesn't once say "proportional".
Instead, it says this:
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/title-39/chapter-11/part-6/section-39-11-611/

The most relevant part here seems to be (b) (1), since he was responding to another's use of unlawful force. It simply says that someone has the right to use force that they reasonably believe to be necessary to prevent another's use of unlawful force against them. Shooting a guy who grabbed and was punching him in the head seems very reasonable to me.

It's right there under 2A dumbass it's almost exactly what I said.

You guys literally have selective eyesight. You'll post the thing I was referring to and claim you don't see it.

 

[Drip Torch]

It's right there under 2A dumbass it's almost exactly what I said.

You guys literally have selective eyesight. You'll post the thing I was referring to and claim you don't see it.

Clownworld, where agreeing with someone makes them mad.

 

[Twrx]

The faggot lost the right of self defense, because he drew before any conflict. That makes the dude he tried to murder the guy trying to act in self defense. And I've said it before, he's such a limp wristed faggot,he didn't kill his target and shot himself. All freedom of speech means is the government can't go after you, it doesn't mean people won't impose consequences on you. And like another poster said, it's near Campbell. I won't acknowledge the 101st, since they're a bunch of baby back bitch legs, but it does have 5th SFG(A) and 160th HQ and their 1st and 2nd batts. If you're going to be a fucking moron, do it somewhere where there aren't people that can kill you in hand to hand. Not saying fox was in any of those units before he got out, just that the possibility of chud running into some cif dude from 5th that's just taking a vacation from CAG. Or ACE, or whatever it's newest name is. Or even TF orange dudes.

 

[Dafuqisdis?]

All freedom of speech means is the government can't go after you, it doesn't mean people won't impose consequences on you. .

This isn't true. There's a thing called "conspiracy against rights".

Your rights are actually protected against other citizens who would try and deprive them through violence or other illegal means, to a certain degree.

That just means that they can be held criminally liable, though. That doesn't mean you can shoot them dead for getting into a fight with you.

 

[anon101x]

That means that if you class confronting or insulating a black person as provocation, then you support the policy of death for offending a black(your god).

What kind of weird ass Jewish Jedi mind tricks are you trying to play at right now?

You can “ermmm akshully it says here that technically it’s legal to……” until you’re blue in the face.

But running up on a man with a camera and saying slurs at him until he punches you in the face doesn’t give you legal license to open fire in a court house parking lot on him.



Black, brown, Mexican, green, purple, no matter the skin color.

You cant open fire on a man when he punches you after recording him and calling him slurs.

Just critically think for a moment. Like, seriously just critically think.

He opened fire in a fucking court house parking lot after calling a dude a whole bunch of slurs for money online. The dude punched him after telling him to go away and he mag dumped

Im probably gonna mute this thread for awhile.

It’s actually scaring me that people think Chud just…… gets to do that? Just gets to do it and nothing will happen.

How are people actually this low IQ
It’s comical

 

[Twrx]

This isn't true. There's a thing called "conspiracy against rights".

Your rights are actually protected against other citizens who would try and deprive them through violence or other illegal means, to a certain degree.

That just means that they can be held criminally liable, though. That doesn't mean you can shoot them dead for getting into a fight with you.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[AirMail]

Doing time for a criminal act is not prescribing death.

Yes it is. It's taking your life away.

 

[Drip Torch]

By "prescribing death", he seems to be referring to you suggesting he should just sit there and take the punches or gamble on a fistfight and potentially end up with brain injuries or dead rather than use his weapon for self defense.

But Fox wasnt armed, he didnt have a gun. This how the law is going to see it. Saying that Fox was armed isnt going to work because J6 deniers have to used the excuse that the rioters werent armed because they didnt carry many firearms, ignoring the multitude of improvised melee weapons. This hurts the self defense narrative and as I said before, the dirty little slut was asking for it.
And seriously, Clarksville white trash and niggers shoot at each other all the time. Hell they shoot each other on the Army base. Just another day in Clarksville TN, but now everyone is suprised and outraged? Give me a fucking break.

 

[AnOminous]

You guys are literally prescribing death for offending a black, the way religious people prescribe death for blasphemy, so I just correctly identify that you worship black people as your god.

He pulled a gun on him you dumb son of a bitch.

 

[AirMail]

He pulled a gun on him you dumb son of a bitch.

You're the dumb son a bitch because there are multiple people in this thread saying that insulting or confronting a black person is provocation, sufficient to justify the removal of the right to self defense, and they are who this comment is directed to.

If you want to argue that the provocation was in drawing a weapon rather than the speech, then go ahead. I never once said it isn't. It's a more reasonable position (although ultimately I doubt it will fit the facts). But don't conflate the two.

If someone uses deadly force against you you can defend yourself unless you are committing a crime.

You lit do not have the right to defend yourself if provoked the attack.

It's right there under 2A dumbass it's almost exactly what I said.

Proportional and reasonable may sound similar, but they aren't. You have the right to use reasonable force, not proportional force.

 

[Drip Torch]

Yes it is. It's taking your life away.

Who's life? No one died yet you keep doomsperging about death. Before you go on about the murder rate everyone one knows about that anyway, because no shit, its no secret and its THE big secret that the MSM doesnt report on, blah blah blah.
So at least no one died, but damn sure thats not the outcome you would have desired.

 

[Twix Eatr]

I can't believe people ITT vote.

 

[Sirfaggot]

Where in the law does it say that you lose the right to self defense with a gun if you provoke an attack, but retain the right to self defense with fists?

It doesn't say that but I don't think he was making a legal argument.

By "prescribing death", he seems to be referring to you suggesting he should just sit there and take the punches or gamble on a fistfight and potentially end up with brain injuries or dead rather than use his weapon for self defense.

Generally, the law surrounding provocation is that the defendant will be prosecuted for fighting UNLESS they demonstrated a clear willingness to cease contact, either by attempting a physical retreat, announcing that they want to stop, or some other means. The law's objective is to prevent people from entering physical altercations, so verbally provoking a fight and sustaining it with retaliatory strikes will never be legitimate unless you renege on your initial aggression and announce your desire to stop. That being said, fighting words do not give the assailant legal permission to assault the person responsible, and they will also face prosecution for having done so.

I can't believe people ITT vote.

Seethe, porcelain dalit.

 

[lamppost]

Ok, so the problem is that you can't read? For the 50th time, stating that you will lawfully defend yourself if someone attacks you is not threatening to murder people or "provocation." You are a faggot.

It doesn't, but there's a handful of commie faggots ITT who keep insisting it does, conflate self-defense with murder, and a bunch of other retarded shit.

This isn't how the law works.

The clue was in this question I asked you earlier. If you answer the question properly we might get somewhere, if you continue to spam negrates and avoid what people are actually saying I will assume you are intact retarded.

L

💪 Tough Guys Post in thread 'Dalton Levi Eatherly / Chud the Builder / ChudTheBuilder'

Friday at 3:15 PM

View attachment 9042631View attachment 9042638View attachment 9042639
"your honor this tweet doesn't imply anything as to why he called them chimps and rioting monkeys is just a figure of speech and why he kept streaming when he seriously thought he would have to kill someone is uhrmmm"

Listen, @Twix Eatr & @DominoPetachi you pair of retards, I'll give you an out here. Do you believe that the judge will not allow these tweets to be used by the prosecution as evidence? Or do you genuinely believe a jury will not find these tweets incriminating when deciding whether Chud needed to mag dump...

• lamppost

Reactions: x 6 x 3

And so it turns out @AirMail is a lolicon enjoyer. For fuck sake

You cannot make this stuff up.

 

[jimbraps]

niggers

emergency reported for racism

 

[Carmen The Aids Rabbit]

And so it turns out @AirMail is a lolicon enjoyer. For fuck sake

You cannot make this stuff up.

If only Cuck the BLACKED went around shooting nonces instead of being a nigger...

 

[Twix Eatr]

This isn't how the law works.

It's exactly how the law works. You aren't even an American. Probably some British faggot behind a VPN so he doesn't get 6 months in jail for these posts.

 

[Twix Eatr]

If you want to continue obsessing over irrelevant shit, go for it. Your additionally retarded statements are immaterial. We were talking about how you don't know how to read. You kept referring to when Chud said he'd lawfully defend himself if assaulted as:

he publicly stated before the fact that he was going to murder someone 'in self defense'

Chud has been trying to provoke an attack on him so he can legally murder someone for months, he has publicly stated multiple times what his plan is

And now you're asking me whether I think a judge will show them? "No, answer this irrelevant question, saar!"

 

[lamppost]

If you want to continue obsessing over irrelevant shit, go for it. Your additionally retarded statements are immaterial. We were talking about how you don't know how to read. You kept referring to when Chud said he'd lawfully defend himself if assaulted as:


And now you're asking me whether I think a judge will show them? "No, answer this irrelevant question, saar!"

"Chud said he'd lawfully defend himself if assaulted" if you believe this then that is fine, but the reality is the prosecution will use what Chud has said and done to present a case to the jury that will argue he did not act in self defence - this may not even be necessary as the court CCTV footage may be enough alone.

Hopefully you get a spot on the jury as most people are not going to view the following as favourably as you do.

"Series finale is dead chimp on the
pavement and you monkeys rioting when I
walk free. Stay tuned"