💪 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.

[AirMail]

You dumbed it down to remove all the actual facts of the case and tried to make that into a yes/no question

Yes. I dumbed it down, removing all context that can be used to obfuscate what they are advocating for.

There is no hiding from it.

I asked them - if a white person calls a black person a nigger - and the black person attacks the white person because they were called nigger - do you think the white person has the right to defend themselves?

And they did not simply answer yes.

They don't believe in the right to free speech.
They don't believe white people have the right to defend themselves .
They are advocating for any white person who calls a black person a nigger to be killed for for it.
That is all there is to it.

They will try to make it more complicated than that, adding a lot of ifs and such, so that they can hide their intentions, but I stripped away all those complications, and it is what it is.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Yes. I dumbed it down, removing all context that can be used to obfuscate what they are advocating for.

There is no hiding from it.

I asked them - if a white person calls a black person a nigger - and the black person attacks the white person because they were called nigger - do you think the white person has the right to defend themselves?

And they did not simply answer yes.

They don't believe in the right to free speech.
They don't believe white people have the right to defend themselves .
They are advocating for any white person who calls a black person a nigger to be killed for for it.
That is all there is to it.

They will try to make it more complicated than that, adding a lot of ifs and such, so that they can hide their intentions, but I stripped away all those complications, and it is what it is.

I said that self-defense would be justified if there was a genuine fear for one's life, which is what the law says. You then continually insisted on turning your “question” into a zero-sum scenario ignoring all actual aspects of the case you were evoking in favor of creating a perfect self-defense case based on your completely false view of what happened. For this reason, let me make a rough flowchart of a scenario where the answer to your question would be “yes”

1. White man enters argument with black man for some reason
2. White man calls black man a nigger
3. Nigger throws White man to the ground and starts beating him in a way that will likely kill or maim
4. White man shoots nigger.

The courts will likely side with the defendant, even if they consider the preceding argument to be a possible complication in a self-defense case, because the “victim” was acting in a way that was far beyond an acceptable response even if the provoking incident was something considered to be fighting words.

In comparison, this is Chud's case, going off of what I have gathered

1. Chud approaches Fox and calls him a nigger
2. Fox gets upset and tells Chud to stop or he will lay him out
3. Chud asks Fox if he is going to “chimp out,” which can reasonably be seen as goading a response
4. Fox punches Chud once
5. Chud magdumps Fox.

This is not considered self-defense because Chud deliberately provoked a response and employed lethal force in a way that would be considered highly disproportionate. The fact that he also talked about how he wanted that exact scenario to happen while bragging about how he would walk free because of “self-defense” means the court will almost certainly consider this shooting a premeditated attempt at murder rather than a genuine attempt to defend his life from a violent attack. The fact that your refuse to see the difference and insist that anybody condemning the latter automatically believes the former is not self-defense marks you as a retard more concerned with your ability to hurt others with impunity than any sort of genuine love for free speech or self-defense rights.

 

[Campbell_Trio]

I asked them - if a white person calls a black person a nigger - and the black person attacks the white person because they were called nigger - do you think the white person has the right to defend themselves?

And they did not simply answer yes.

So this was a retarded bait question meant to enforce a bias and ignore responses that required you to think?

They are advocating for any white person who calls a black person a nigger to be killed for for it.
That is all there is to it.

BBC on the brain

 

[AirMail]

Chud asks Fox if he is going to “chimp out,” which can reasonably be seen as goading a response

This is not considered self-defense because Chud deliberately provoked a response

I see.

So a white person can say nigger. But if a white person axes a black person if they will chimp out, then they lose the right to live.

Very reasonable. Very intelligent. You are definitely not a complete psychopath.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I see.

So a white person can say nigger. But if a white person axes a black person if they will chimp out, then they lose the right to live.

Very reasonable. Very intelligent. You are definitely not a complete psychopath.

No. If a person contrives a situation, planning to shoot and kill a person who after provocation takes a swing at them, and in fvt shoots anmd kills them, then that person is not acting in self-defense.

 

[AirMail]

No. If a person contrives a situation, planning to shoot and kill a person who after provocation takes a swing at them, and in fvt shoots anmd kills them, then that person is not acting in self-defense.

He very clearly just explained that he asked if he was going to “chimp out,” which is "goading a response" which is "not considered self-defense because Chud deliberately provoked a response".

"Chimp out" = "goading" = "not self defense"

Replace "Chimp out" with "nigger", or replace "goading" with "provoking", and you have the opinion of most of the people in here. You're all the same.

Yoo don't think a white person who asks a black person if they will chimp out has a right to defend their life.

It ironic because you're all more violent racist psychopaths than Chud.

 

[mawrieposter]

To end this entire argument, this is exactly what Tennessee law says:

It clearly says that self-defense does not apply when you're a wignat retard who keeps talking about wanting to provoke a Black person to have a reason to kill them and then finds himself in that exact position. Whether your attacker's conduct is legally assault is independent of the fact that you were trying to get that outcome unless you made an effort to abandon the confrontation and the attacker kept trying to assault you. If you don't back out or, even worse, actually premeditated the situation, you lose self-defense even when the other party unlawfully attacked you.

 

[AirMail]

To end this entire argument, this is exactly what Tennessee law says:

Ver archivo adjunto 9115311

It clearly says that self-defense does not apply when you're a wignat retard who keeps talking about wanting to provoke a Black person to have a reason to kill them and then finds himself in that exact position. Whether your attacker's conduct is legally assault is independent of the fact that you were trying to get that outcome unless you made an effort to abandon the confrontation and the attacker kept trying to assault you. If you don't back out or, even worse, actually premeditated the situation, you lose self-defense even when the other party unlawfully attacked you.

And do you believe that calling someone a nigger provokes that person to use unlawful force?

 

[mawrieposter]

And do you believe that calling someone a nigger provokes that person to use unlawful force?

If you've stated on camera multiple times that you call people "nigger" exclusively to try to provoke that person to use unlawful force, yes I have reason to believe so based on the what the law says. Whether the person using force against you for calling them a "nigger" is unlawful or not does not change the fact that you were trying to make that happen. As I said, there are situations where you lose the claim to self-defense even when you get attacked first. Laws are written in ways to prevent people from disguising elaborate plots to kill someone as "self-defense"

 

[Campbell_Trio]

And do you believe that calling someone a nigger provokes that person to use unlawful force?

Almost like its more than just the word its the entire antagonistic statement but you seem hung up over the word nigger.

If you've stated on camera multiple times that you call people "nigger" exclusively to try to provoke that person to use unlawful force, yes I have reason to believe so based on the what the law says. Whether the person using force against you for calling them a "nigger" is unlawful or not does not change the fact that you were trying to make that happen. As I said, there are situations where you lose the claim to self-defense even when you get attacked first. Laws are written in ways to prevent people from disguising elaborate plots to kill someone as "self-defense"

No but you see he's black and chud is white, he didn't do nuffin

 

[AnOminous]

Sometimes there's a white man.
Sometimes there's a right man.
Sometimes there's a nigger.
Sometimes the nigger is a white man.

Guess what? This is one of those times where the nigger was a white man.

 

[Drip Torch]

So you literally believe that people should lose the right to live if they call a black person a nigger.

No one in the thread has said this.
Saying nigger in public is not and has never been, illegal.

 

[AirMail]

If you've stated on camera multiple times that you call people "nigger" exclusively to try to provoke that person to use unlawful force, yes I have reason to believe so based on the what the law says. Whether the person using force against you for calling them a "nigger" is unlawful or not does not change the fact that you were trying to make that happen. As I said, there are situations where you lose the claim to self-defense even when you get attacked first. Laws are written in ways to prevent people from disguising elaborate plots to kill someone as "self-defense"

So just to clarify. You do believe it's ok for a white person who says nigger to be violently attack and they have no right to defend themselves.

Like I said, you're more of a racist psychopath than Chud.

 

[OG Swolemaster]

@AirMail no more chuddies jumping on the bed!

 

[Campbell_Trio]

Sometimes there's a white man.
Sometimes there's a right man.
Sometimes there's a nigger.
Sometimes the nigger is a white man.

Guess what? This is one of those times where the nigger was a white man.

I'm glad i read your posts with john goodmans voice in my head

 

[Dafuqisdis?]

So just to clarify. You do believe it's ok for a white person who says nigger to be violently attack and they have no right to defend themselves.

Like I said, you're more of a racist psychopath than Chud.

You repeating yourself a thousand times does not make your points and less stupid and doesn't make yourself any less of a dumb faggot.

Normal people understand that self defense needs to be proportional. If someone takes a swing at you you can punch back or tackle them or maybe run to the police in Chud's case who are probably ten meters away and hide behind them. This is pretty general advice regardless of whether the nigger word was deployed.

Now you can pretend that every punch or other attack from a normal sized dude is some life or death scenario and you should mag dump on them, but again normal non-retarded people will understand that that's not a realistic or sustainable outlook. Not only that, non-retards will look at the nuisance streamer as the initial aggressor, making any self defense claims highly suspect.

 

[Carmen The Aids Rabbit]

If a black guy hits you, maybe you should hit him b...

NO! I WANT TO KILL NIGGERS!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! ​

 

[AndyGuntski]

White nationalist on xitter with 32k followers throws Dalton under the bus.

Ver archivo adjunto 9113796
X

extremely rare josh moon w

 

[gay]

So just to clarify. You do believe it's ok for a white person who says nigger to be violently attack and they have no right to defend themselves.

it doesn't matter if the person is black or white or whether they used slurs or not, if you go around insulting people in the hopes that they react physically then your intent will always jeopardize your claim to lawful self-defense you obtuse faggot.

it doesn't mean that the person who gave into their low impulse control is justified, it just means the both of you retards are in the wrong and you don't get to hide under muh 1st amendment when you use your speech to incite someone else to break the law.

 

[AirMail]

If a black guy hits you, maybe you should hit him b...

According to the people in this thread, you literally don't have the right to hit him back. You lose the right to use force in self defense.

if you go around insulting people in the hopes that they react physically then your intent will always jeopardize your claim to lawful self-defense you obtuse faggot.

So now it's insulting people that is not allowed. No insults or you lose the right to self defense. You just have to let yourself die, and if you don't, we'll send you to prison. Insults don't count as free speech.

Nice idea of free speech you got there.