💪 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.

[Raven of the Burning God]

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

Hello! Welcome to the thread!
This is not a "fighting words" statute.
This is a "mutual combatant" statute.

The keywords and tricky phrases to provoke the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force are things like "Hit me."
Not even "What are you going to do? Stab me?"; but an actual imperative statement to the other individual to use unlawful force.
Using the nigger-word and asking the other individual if they're going to chimp out is not an invitation to mutual combat.

Feel free to look for any of the at least half dozen other times someone has quoted TCA38-11-611(e)(2) in this thread thinking they'd blown the case wide open if you'd like to review the various cited caselaw.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

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.

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.

Okay then, how about this: I get to call you a white trash pedo, I get to tell you to hit me if you get upset, and I then get to magdump you if you decide to act on that goading. It's only free speech to call you a white-trash pedo, and getting punched once after telling somebody to hit you is sufficient for self-defense in your mind.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

Okay then, how about this: I get to call you a white trash pedo,

Might catch you a disorderly conduct or similar when it all shakes out, but doesn't impinge your right to self defense.

I get to tell you to hit me if you get upset

As noted in my post immediately before yours, this is what TCA-39-11-611(e)(2) refers to.

, and I then get to magdump you if you decide to act on that goading.

In provoking the other individual to use or attempt to use unlawful force by telling them to hit you, you removed your ability to claim self defense.

If you'd just stuck to calling them white trash who wants to rape children and mocking them if they became upset at your insults, you'd presumably still be in the clear if they escalated to unlawful force without provocation. But, instead, you told them to hit you and they complied with your request for combat.

 

[Flaming Insignias]

Might catch you a disorderly conduct or similar when it all shakes out, but doesn't impinge your right to self defense.

As noted in my post immediately before yours, this is what TCA-39-11-611(e)(2) refers to.

In provoking the other individual to use or attempt to use unlawful force by telling them to hit you, you removed your ability to claim self defense.

If you'd just stuck to calling them white trash who wants to rape children and mocking them if they became upset at your insults, you'd presumably still be in the clear if they escalated to unlawful force without provocation. But, instead, you told them to hit you and they complied with your request for combat.

That's my point. I do believe that the “chimp out” line would reasonably be seen as provocation, since it comes off less as an observation and more a variant of “You mad? Do something about it.” The fact that Chud makes that response after beginning the confrontation with a highly provocative statement is what I think will prevent him from arguing a self-defense case.

 

[Dafuqisdis?]

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.

That's actually true in a lot of situations. If you antagonize someone with fighting words and get into what is refered to as mutual combat, you can both be arrested. It all depends on the circumstances and how law enforcement sees it. The law has always worked this way. You may be incapable of understanding it, but that's how it works.

And the thing is, getting arrested for a fistfight is much better than trying to kill someone and getting arrested for that.

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.

Chud wasn't about to die dipshit, he's the one that tried to kill someone. Hence why he's up on attempted murder charges.

I know you understand this and are trying hard not to because you're controlled by your little white nationalist ragepecker that has flaired up and the only cure is to react by spouting nonsense.

That's my point. I do believe that the “chimp out” line would reasonably be seen as provocation, since it comes off less as an observation and more a variant of “You mad? Do something about it.” The fact that Chud makes that response after beginning the confrontation with a highly provocative statement is what I think will prevent him from arguing a self-defense case.

That's not the main point that's going to prevent him from arguing self defense. The main thing that's going to get him is that his actions weren't proportional in the least, and the fact that he was making such statements in the first place will clue a jury into his state of mind, which is that he was not genuinely afraid for his life.

Whether or not his statements rise to provocation is a much smaller matter in my opinion.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

That's my point. I do believe that the “chimp out” line would reasonably be seen as provocation, since it comes off less as an observation and more a variant of “You mad? Do something about it.”

Asking someone "Are you going to chimp out?" and telling someone "Chimp out." are not equivalent utterances.
Both are reasonably seen as offensive, but being offensive isn't a crime and usually isn't even illegal.
Telling someone to use or attempt to use unlawful force is incitement.
Telling someone to use or attempt to use unlawful force against you is provocation.
Asking someone if they're going to use or attempt to use unlawful force (against you) is not.

The fact that Chud makes that response after beginning the confrontation with a highly provocative statement is what I think will prevent him from arguing a self-defense case.

The fictional character "Chud the Builder", performed by Dalton Eatherly, saying the character's various catch phrases is not something I would expect a reasonable person to perceive as personally offensive or a call to violence.

Early accounts seemed to indicate Eatherly noticed he was recognized by the group, including Joshua Fox, and may have approached them believing they were "Chud the Builder" fans. He performed his little song and dance, they were not amused, he bid them a good day and moved to exit the interaction. That last bit would mean that even if TCA-39-11-611(e)(2) could be applied, Eatherly satisfied TCA39-11-611(e)(2)(A) before Fox attacked.

 

[Sheogorath]

The fictional character "Chud the Builder"

this is like a kid's idea of what a lawyer does the only thing fictional here is your fucking brain dude

 

[Homeboy Bob Proctor]

When the founding fathers wrote the frist and second amendment they had in mind a white trash retard who didn't want to get a real job to pay his child support and was just gonna rage bait niggers on pump.fun. god bless America the land of the free

 

[Campbell_Trio]

The fictional character "Chud the Builder", performed by Dalton Eatherly, saying the character's various catch phrases is not something I would expect a reasonable person to perceive as personally offensive or a call to violence.

What is this faggot interpretation?
There is no character and there is no catchphrase its just Dalton saying stupid antagonistic shit

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

The main thing that's going to get him is that his actions weren't proportional in the least, and the fact that he was making such statements in the first place will clue a jury into his state of mind, which is that he was not genuinely afraid for his life.

Surely you've had the experience of someone talking mad shit until they realize they misjudged a situation?

You can step into an interaction joking&smoking, performing your over-the-top ridiculous caricature character "Chud the Builder" for fans, and then, oh, these aren't fans, these are the people who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, or are otherwise genuinely offended by your comedic act, and are for some reason claiming to be combat veterans with PTSD. You should get out of this place before they do something ultraviolent.

 

[Lime]

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.

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.

Funnily enough Tennessee doesn't have mutual combat laws. But if someone punches you in Texas you can beat their ass with proportional use of force.

 

[Campbell_Trio]

You can step into an interaction joking&smoking, performing your over-the-top ridiculous caricature character "Chud the Builder"

Stop with this retarded argument, chud the builder isn't a character it is his online username/persona.
This is like if Hasan Piker fanboys defended him by saying he plays the character of "Hasanabi" online but none of them do that because it's a retarded argument that makes no sense.

You should get out of this place before they do something ultraviolent.

Chud should have gotten out of yelling nigger at black people for content and raise his kid instead of having him be raised by a single mom

 

[Carmen The Aids Rabbit]

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.

Alright, I'm gonna bite. Mind showing me the people in this thread who said Chud wasn't allowed to use his fists?

 

[Campbell_Trio]

Alright, I'm gonna bite. Mind showing me the people in this thread who said Chud wasn't allowed to use his fists?

No one said this, he just wants to believe this because no one said outright "yes chud has the right to defend himself" because all of the arguments being made should already make that obvious, airmail is just in denial that most people in this thread think self defense is not gonna hold up as a legal defense in court because of chuds online history and the fact he is the instigator

 

[AnOminous]

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

Why do these dumb fucking retards keep making up shit nobody has said?

 

[AnOminous]

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

NIGGER! NIGGER! Look at me, I'm saying NIGGER!

This is completely legal behavior. I could go outside and do this, too. But I would be in no danger, living in a nigger-free environment. But if I did, and one of the melanated individuals took offense, and took a swing at me, maybe I'd swing back. Maybe I'd just take the beating I invited.

You know what I wouldn't do? I wouldn't whip out a fucking gun, because I like the idea of not spending the rest of my life in prison like some kind of goddamn retard.

When the founding fathers wrote the frist and second amendment they had in mind a white trash retard who didn't want to get a real job to pay his child support and was just gonna rage bait niggers on pump.fun. god bless America the land of the free

They actually were aware, though. They knew this country was full of fucking mental retards. The First Amendment really IS about protecting the rights of even the dumbest fucking retards.

Because we're always going to disagree about which retards are the dumbest.

 

[Raven of the Burning God]

Stop with this retarded argument, chud the builder isn't a character it is his online username/persona.

lol.
lmao, even.

This is like if Hasan Piker fanboys defended him by saying he plays the character of "Hasanabi" online but none of them do that because it's a retarded argument that makes no sense.

Usually the "Hasan Piker fanboys" are the ones that do not see through the persona, so it would not make any sense for for a "fanboy" to defend him by pointing out he's a big fat phony and/or a grifting hypocrite. Perhaps that sort of gross conceptual error may be why you're having trouble understanding "Chud the Builder" is also just a character some asshole plays because it brings in views/money?

There's no more reason to believe the statements of "Chud the Builder" reflect the genuine beliefs of Dalton Eatherly than there is to think the statements of "Hasan Piker" reflect the genuine beliefs of Hasan Piker.

Mind showing me the people in this thread who said Chud wasn't allowed to use his fists?

Anyone who has brought up TCA39-11-611(e)(2) or made similar/derivative arguments.
There are several on this page of the thread alone.

So far the only person I've seen properly disregarding the provocation claim and explicitly arguing that his guilt or innocence will likely be a matter of proportionate response is Dafuqisdis?, but I don't routinely check this thread, so apologies if I missed anyone.

 

[Campbell_Trio]

lol.
lmao, even.

Always a good sign that you totally have an actual argument when you respond with reaction memes like this is fucking twitter

Usually the "Hasan Piker fanboys" are the ones that do not see through the persona, so it would not make any sense for for a "fanboy" to defend him by pointing out he's a big fat phony and/or a grifting hypocrite.

Literally no one who makes fun of or defends Hasan use the argument he is playing a character or is talking through a persona. They call him out for his stupid actions or his stupid words. No one was saying "oh the character Hasanabi played by Hasan Piker said america deserved 9/11" they say "Hasan Piker said america deserved 9/11" Just like how with Chud the builder they don't say "The character chud the builder played by Dalton Eatherly is gonna be charged with attempted murder in court" they say "Chud the builder is gonna be charged with attempted murder in court"

Perhaps that sort of gross conceptual error may be why you're having trouble understanding "Chud the Builder" is also just a character some asshole plays because it brings in views/money?

Cause he isn't a character and this is just your weird cope now that you ran out of other options to defend him? If it was just a character there would not be any examples of Dalton acting as such before becoming a streamer but there are. You are basically arguing that a guy who acted like this before being notorious is now suddenly playing a "character" despite said character just being himself.

Anyone who has brought up TCA39-11-611(e)(2) or made similar/derivative arguments.
There are several on this page of the thread alone.

I don't care about your nhentai codes i don't care about what you jerk off with, you aren't a lawyer and how you interpret the law isn't how its gonna go down at trial.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

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

It obviously did, brainiac. And he very clearly indicated that that was his intention. I hope for your sake your obtuseness is deliberate.

The provocateur limitation can absolutely be triggered by verbal statements, and they don't have to be direct threats. There's a reasonableness test, and the reasonableness of expectation of the response to the provocation is going to be highly informed by the fact that this played out exactly as he promised it would.

So far the only person I've seen properly disregarding the provocation claim and explicitly arguing that his guilt or innocence will likely be a matter of proportionate response is Dafuqisdis?, but I don't routinely check this thread, so apologies if I missed anyone.

I've previously described both.

 

[AnOminous]

Cause he isn't a character and this is just your weird cope now that you ran out of other options to defend him?

This should be his closing argument. "Yeah when I shot that guy and tried to murder him, I was JUST PLAYING A CHARACTER." Let's see how that works in front of a jury. LMAO.