Gaeilge said:

---

I'm not saying I agree with the bond value. I'm just laughing at it because this guy is a POS and all of his perceived clout is coming to a screeching halt currently.

The judge that set the bond is a Republican for what it's worth.

---

The problem is really with how easy liberal judges are on black and brown criminals. It's absurd and a genuine threat to society at large.

This has been an absolute MF disaster in Houston. Resulting in countless assaults, rapes, fatal DUI crashes, and murders that should have never happened.

Muy said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Play stupid games...

---

Sounds like the deceased played stupid games as well.

---

Yeah, words rarely warrant physical violence.

Still, very stupid to just walk around calling people the n-word for internet clout tokens. Pretty pathetic.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Muy said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Play stupid games...

---

Sounds like the deceased played stupid games as well.

---

Yeah, words rarely warrant physical violence.

Still, very stupid to just walk around calling people the n-word for internet clout tokens. Pretty pathetic.

---

Many black people have been conditioned since birth to view the n-word as maybe the biggest infraction known to man...worthy of violent assault and even murder.

How this bozo didn't know that is beyond me.

Not even sure what he was ultimately trying to accomplish...it's not like you can build a huge monetized following or account using this type of material. It's honestly why iI thought he may be a fed actor up until this incident. It's like he just wanted to ultimately make a point or prove himself right. Or suicide by black.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Muy said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Play stupid games...

---

Sounds like the deceased played stupid games as well.

---

Yeah, words rarely warrant physical violence.

Still, very stupid to just walk around calling people the n-word for internet clout tokens. Pretty pathetic.

---

Many black people have been conditioned since birth to view the n-word as maybe the biggest infraction known to man...worthy of violent assault and even murder.

How this bozo didn't know that is beyond me.

Not even sure what he was ultimately trying to accomplish...it's not like you can build a huge monetized following or account using this type of material. It's like he just wanted to ultimately make a point or prove himself right. Or suicide by black.

---

That's what you're now missing.

There was a huge market for it, he realized it and made it his calling since it appears he was on hard times. Saying the N word was striking gold which then created him as a nuisance streamer.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Muy said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Play stupid games...

---

Sounds like the deceased played stupid games as well.

---

Yeah, words rarely warrant physical violence.

Still, very stupid to just walk around calling people the n-word for internet clout tokens. Pretty pathetic.

---

Many black people have been conditioned since birth to view the n-word as maybe the biggest infraction known to man...worthy of violent assault and even murder.

How this bozo didn't know that is beyond me.

Not even sure what he was ultimately trying to accomplish...it's not like you can build a huge monetized following or account using this type of material. It's honestly why iI thought he may be a fed actor up until this incident. It's like he just wanted to ultimately make a point or prove himself right. Or suicide by black.

---

He did know that.

He was intentionally trying to rage bait people for online views, that is all he was trying to accomplish. A very pathetic way of seeking attention and money.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

Not that it matters, but I believe he made this post before the incident:

TAMUallen said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Read the post again

Quote:

---

and yes physically attacking him for that should be a crime

---

Getting your ass beat can be both deserved and illegal. They are not mutually exclusive.

---

Where do you draw the line on what words morally warrant a violent assault? If I state a fact like "George Floyd was an illiterate career felon who violently robbed and terrorized a pregnant woman at gunpoint" and some brainwashed black person who looks up to that sack of sh** assaults me, was it deserved? Many black people would say yes...where do you stand? You see the slippery slope issue with "you deserve to get your ass beat for bad words because that's how the cavemen and pioneers did it" don't you?

If we lived in a more homogeneous and civilized society, I might be inclined to accept this notion...but we live in a society with a segment of the population who thinks it's ok to get violent and destroy a fast food restaurant and assault employees because they ran out of milk shakes. I don't like the thought of "it's illegal, but OK for them to beat my ass and gang stomp my lights out if I say words they don't like". NO OTHER GROUP BEHAVES LIKE THAT GROUP IN THIS REGARD, barring very rare exceptions. We routinely see videos of them jumping on peoples heads after they're knocked unconsciouss while their friends laugh and film it. I personally don't trust peoples judgement on what is "offensive enough for a violent beatdown" like you might.

---

If you walk up to people unprovoked and start calling them racial slurs I have no moral issue with you getting punched in the face. It absolutely should be a crime to do so in a civilized society, but that doesn't mean you didn't deserve it or that I should feel sorry for you.

---

Dear diary

---

Our society would be better off if people operated day to day with a greater fear of getting punched in the face if they participate in uncivilized and intentionally disruptive behavior.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

But that is not what happened here.

He did walk up to someone and said something with the intention of provoking them.

His other videos are just further evidence of him attempting to provoke people into confrontations.

Tea Party said:

---

People that use language in a way that degrades a civilized American culture suck.
People that resort to violence because of someone else's language suck even more.

Freedom of speech is great and must be protected, but this just looks like a case of one idiot clashing with another idiot and all I can really do is shake my head at society's degredation.

---

Freedom of speech doea not mean freedom from consequences. Don't act like an idiot.

If this gets corroborated by the videos/evidence, he'll walk.

Did you know?

The shot was fired FROM THE GROUND.

Chud was being beaten by the guy.

ALSO

The guy said ‘I’m gonna fucking kill you!’

All caught on audio.

Stay tuned, cowards.

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) May 15, 2026

Quote:

---

CHUD UPDATE:

Here are some fun facts that you'll see developing:

- The entire exchange was live-streamed on PumpFun

- The stream shut down at the first gunshot due to an automated AI response system

- The stream is being subpoenaed

THE FACTS ACCORDING TO OVER 100 WITNESSES WATCHING THE STREAM:

- Chud told the guy 'I hope your day gets better. God bless'

- Chud had already walked away. Was about 70-100 yards away

- The man went out of his way to run up on Chud while his back was turned

- HE confronted Chud

- HE punched Chud in his face
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know?

The shot was fired FROM THE GROUND.

Chud was being beaten by the guy.

ALSO

The guy said 'I'm gonna ****ing kill you!'

All caught on audio.

Stay tuned, cowards.

---

ETA:
Looks like he'll have enough to bond out

BREAKING - Chud the Builder has successfully raised enough money to pay 10% of his $1.25 million bond to be released from jail. pic.twitter.com/T7CXt2XG7M

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) May 15, 2026

Chimp around find out pic.twitter.com/S41IAgXcdG

— ChudTheBuilder (@ChudTheBuilder) May 8, 2026

🚨CHUD THE BUILDER TRIED TO INTIMIDATE A BLACK POLICE OFFICER AND A BARSTOOL EMPLOYEE IN NASHVILLE BY CALLING THEM NI*****

THIS TYPE OF CONTENT IS POINTLESS @stoolpresidente pic.twitter.com/d2u6RmhsRH

— Dante Henderson (@DanteHendo4188) May 9, 2026

From last week. Seems like a standup guy.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

---

That KKK member would have the right to defend himself, as would anyone. But again, the facts here are different.

Quote:

---

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

---

I understand that's your opinion, but that's not what the law is. Allllllll his prior bad acts are going to be admitted.

Quote:

---

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

Of course they would. That's an asinine suggestion.

This guy kind of reminds me of that broccoli headed ******* that bumps into and provokes people and when they get upset about it has a bodyguard built like a bouncer that beats them up.

I can't believe they are somehow popular

Did he FA?

Yep


Did he FO?


Yep

I keep hoping he picks the wrong fight and someone gets past his bodyguard and gives him some comeuppance.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

But that is not what happened here.

He did walk up to someone and said something with the intention of provoking them.

His other videos are just further evidence of him attempting to provoke people into confrontations.

---

Right, so if you walk up to someone and provoke them with words, and they start kicking your face in, you lose all right to defend your life because you said mean words? That's your argument right? If you started something verbally, you have no right to defend yourself against the person if they choose to physically attack you right?

Zachary Klement said:

---

Chimp around find out pic.twitter.com/S41IAgXcdG

— ChudTheBuilder (@ChudTheBuilder) May 8, 2026

🚨CHUD THE BUILDER TRIED TO INTIMIDATE A BLACK POLICE OFFICER AND A BARSTOOL EMPLOYEE IN NASHVILLE BY CALLING THEM NI*****

THIS TYPE OF CONTENT IS POINTLESS @stoolpresidente pic.twitter.com/d2u6RmhsRH

— Dante Henderson (@DanteHendo4188) May 9, 2026

From last week. Seems like a standup guy.

---

He's awful, no one is defending his behavior. Commenting on the altercation and it's legal ramifications is a completely separate issue to most of us.

It's you guys who are allowing "karms" to creep into a legal discussion.

Im Gipper said:

---

Did he FA?

Yep


Did he FO?


Yep

---

Who? Chud the arrested?

As I've been saying. We know nothing. Wait till more comes out. He's an idiot but knew he was agitating with words.


If there's validity to the shooting being with him on the ground, after being attacked first, and the assailant was yelling how he was going to kill Chud. There's not much of a case unless theyre going to go on some lesser charges like disturbing the peace type things.

Im referring to this claim posted above btw:

CHUD UPDATE:

Here are some fun facts that you’ll see developing:

- The entire exchange was live-streamed on PumpFun

- The stream shut down at the first gunshot due to an automated AI response system

- The stream is being subpoenaed

THE FACTS ACCORDING TO OVER 100 WITNESSES…

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) May 15, 2026

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

---

That KKK member would have the right to defend himself, as would anyone. But again, the facts here are different.

Quote:

---

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

---

I understand that's your opinion, but that's not what the law is. Allllllll his prior bad acts are going to be admitted.

Quote:

---

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

Of course they would. That's an asinine suggestion.

---

So by this logic, as a result of his past actions and words (which we all agree are stupid and hateful) Chud could never legally defend himself against any black attackers...even if he was just minding his business and they recognized him from his online postings and started assaulting him...or maybe it's just 100% random.

But he would have to let them beat him or kill him because he has said crazy mean and rascist things online and therefore provoked the attack?

Is there any statute of limitations or anything, after which period of time he can eventually legally defend himself against non-white attackers?

Quote:

---

Right, so if you walk up to someone and provoke them with words, and they start kicking your face in, you lose all right to defend your life because you said mean words? That's your argument right? If you started something verbally, you have no right to defend yourself against the person if they choose to physically attack you right?

---

My understanding of Tennessee law is that being the initial provoker, then requires that person a duty to retreat to reinstate any claim of self defense. There is also a question of reasonableness under the laws of self defense.

Now I am not familiar with many facts in this case other than his online presence being less than savory. And that Chud said something intended to provoke a response. So any legal analysis of whether self defense is still in play here is premature.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Chimp around find out pic.twitter.com/S41IAgXcdG

— ChudTheBuilder (@ChudTheBuilder) May 8, 2026

🚨CHUD THE BUILDER TRIED TO INTIMIDATE A BLACK POLICE OFFICER AND A BARSTOOL EMPLOYEE IN NASHVILLE BY CALLING THEM NI*****

THIS TYPE OF CONTENT IS POINTLESS @stoolpresidente pic.twitter.com/d2u6RmhsRH

— Dante Henderson (@DanteHendo4188) May 9, 2026

From last week. Seems like a standup guy.

---

He's awful, no one is defending his behavior. Commenting on the altercation and it's legal ramifications is a completely separate issue to most of us.

It's you guys who are allowing "karms" to creep into a legal discussion.

---

In Texas, provoking the issue can preclude a self defense defense. As stated in Smith v. State in 1998:

Quote:

---

A charge on provocation is required when there is sufficient evidence (1) that the defendant did some act or used some words which provoked the attack on him, (2) that such act or words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack, and (3) that the act was done or the words were used for the purpose and with the intent that the defendant would have a pretext for inflicting harm upon the other. . . .

An instruction on provocation should only be given when there is evidence from which a rational jury could find every element of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

This did not happen in Texas, but it would not surprise me if there are similar laws in place elsewhere.

You could make a strong argument that all three are met.

(1) He used words which provoked the attack on him
(2) More difficult to prove, but he is very clearly trying to instigate conflict in his videos and given his previous statements about the likelihood he would shoot someone someday and there being multiple videos of him provoking people, drawing a reaction, and then pepper spraying them, there is definitely a case to be made his words were reasonably calculated to provoke the attack
(3) There is a case to be made for the third element too and his prior statements and him pepper spraying people on video online make it seem like he is doing these things with the intent that the other party would do something to allow him to use greater force on him

In life, you generally don't get to play the bully, get slapped for being a bully, and then claim to be the victim.

Also, curious whether deadly force would be justified or not if none of that were in play. Was he just punched one time? That is not a proportionate response. Was he jumped like the last tweet said? Then, yes, it is justified.

Similar schtick to Alex Stein.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, so if you walk up to someone and provoke them with words, and they start kicking your face in, you lose all right to defend your life because you said mean words? That's your argument right? If you started something verbally, you have no right to defend yourself against the person if they choose to physically attack you right?

---

My understanding of Tennessee law is that being the initial provoker, then requires that person a duty to retreat to reinstate any claim of self defense. There is also a question of reasonableness under the laws of self defense.

Now I am not familiar with many facts in this case other than his online presence being less than savory. And that Chud said something intended to provoke a response. So any legal analysis of whether self defense is still in play here is premature.

---

If the following claim (we still no nothing for sure about much of anything) per a tweet linked above is true, with recording to support it, then I'm not seeing how this has even gone this far:

Quote:

---

Chud told the guy 'I hope your day gets better. God bless'

- Chud had already walked away. Was about 70-100 yards away

- The man went out of his way to run up on Chud while his back was turned

- HE confronted Chud

- HE punched Chud in his face

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, so if you walk up to someone and provoke them with words, and they start kicking your face in, you lose all right to defend your life because you said mean words? That's your argument right? If you started something verbally, you have no right to defend yourself against the person if they choose to physically attack you right?

---

My understanding of Tennessee law is that being the initial provoker, then requires that person a duty to retreat to reinstate any claim of self defense. There is also a question of reasonableness under the laws of self defense.

Now I am not familiar with many facts in this case other than his online presence being less than savory. And that Chud said something intended to provoke a response. So any legal analysis of whether self defense is still in play here is premature.

---

Yeah, I can see this being the issue for sure...whether he provoked this particular altercation is likely very relevant. It's the "he had made racist and super inappropriate posts before that can determine whether this was justified self defense" that I have a real issue with. Just seems like an extremely slippery slope.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

---

That KKK member would have the right to defend himself, as would anyone. But again, the facts here are different.

Quote:

---

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

---

I understand that's your opinion, but that's not what the law is. Allllllll his prior bad acts are going to be admitted.

Quote:

---

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

Of course they would. That's an asinine suggestion.

---

So by this logic, as a result of his past actions and words (which we all agree are stupid and hateful) Chud could never legally defend himself against any black attackers...even if he was just minding his business and they recognized him from his online postings and started assaulting him...or maybe it's just 100% random.

But he would have to let them beat him or kill him because he has said crazy mean and rascist things online and therefore provoked the attack?

Is there any statute of limitations or anything, after which period of time he can eventually legally defend himself against non-white attackers?

---

You are either being intentionally obtuse, or at minimum you are arguing against a position nobody is taking. No one is saying Chud can never legally defend himself against an attacker because he has said racist things online.

The distinction is intent and provocation. If he was minding his own business and someone attacked him because of past comments, then his past comments would not automatically eliminate his right to defend himself. But his posts show that he planned to provoke people, anticipated violence, and believed he could legally kill someone if he created the right confrontation, then those posts are not just "mean words." They are evidence of intent to kill.

That is the difference. This is not about punishing him for being a racist piece of ***** It is about whether he sought out a situation where he thought he could manufacture a self-defense claim after provoking a violent encounter. The case should still be about what happened during the altercation, but his prior statements matter if they help show what he was trying to make happen.

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

---

That KKK member would have the right to defend himself, as would anyone. But again, the facts here are different.

Quote:

---

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

---

I understand that's your opinion, but that's not what the law is. Allllllll his prior bad acts are going to be admitted.

Quote:

---

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

Of course they would. That's an asinine suggestion.

---

So by this logic, as a result of his past actions and words (which we all agree are stupid and hateful) Chud could never legally defend himself against any black attackers...even if he was just minding his business and they recognized him from his online postings and started assaulting him...or maybe it's just 100% random.

But he would have to let them beat him or kill him because he has said crazy mean and rascist things online and therefore provoked the attack?

Is there any statute of limitations or anything, after which period of time he can eventually legally defend himself against non-white attackers?

---

In that scenario, of course he could defend himself. That's not a hard call. (Btw, who taught you logic? You've been inferring things I've never said, and trying to string things together that are distinctly different.)

Hardcore Greg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, so if you walk up to someone and provoke them with words, and they start kicking your face in, you lose all right to defend your life because you said mean words? That's your argument right? If you started something verbally, you have no right to defend yourself against the person if they choose to physically attack you right?

---

My understanding of Tennessee law is that being the initial provoker, then requires that person a duty to retreat to reinstate any claim of self defense. There is also a question of reasonableness under the laws of self defense.

Now I am not familiar with many facts in this case other than his online presence being less than savory. And that Chud said something intended to provoke a response. So any legal analysis of whether self defense is still in play here is premature.

---

Yeah, I can see this being the issue for sure...whether he provoked this particular altercation is likely very relevant. It's the "he had made racist and super inappropriate posts before that can determine whether this was justified self defense" that I have a real issue with. Just seems like an extremely slippery slope.

---

But it isn't just that, he made such comments previously for the purpose of getting into physical altercations AND he posted videos of said altercations online.

It is not like anyone is saying, "well he was racist online, anyone is free to kick his ass."

His history of instigating altercations, baiting people so he can use retaliatory force, posting those interactions online, and making comments about likely shooting someone one day help create a narrative that this was his intended outcome based on an established pattern of behavior.

I think that's the key distinction. Is he defending himself is he himself started the fight and has a history of operating with the intention to start fights.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, so if you walk up to someone and provoke them with words, and they start kicking your face in, you lose all right to defend your life because you said mean words? That's your argument right? If you started something verbally, you have no right to defend yourself against the person if they choose to physically attack you right?

---

My understanding of Tennessee law is that being the initial provoker, then requires that person a duty to retreat to reinstate any claim of self defense. There is also a question of reasonableness under the laws of self defense.

Now I am not familiar with many facts in this case other than his online presence being less than savory. And that Chud said something intended to provoke a response. So any legal analysis of whether self defense is still in play here is premature.

---

Yeah, I can see this being the issue for sure...whether he provoked this particular altercation is likely very relevant. It's the "he had made racist and super inappropriate posts before that can determine whether this was justified self defense" that I have a real issue with. Just seems like an extremely slippery slope.

---

But it isn't just that, he made such comments previously for the purpose of getting into physical altercations AND he posted videos of said altercations online.

It is not like anyone is saying, "well he was racist online, anyone is free to kick his ass."

His history of instigating altercations, baiting people so he can use retaliatory force, posting those interactions online, and making comments about likely shooting someone one day help create a narrative that this was his intended outcome based on an established pattern of behavior.

---

Got it, so he could never legally and justifiably defend himself against violent attack by a black person. Ever? Or is there a statute of limitations...say 5 yrs? 10 yrs? Surely the slate is eventually wiped clean and he is allowed this basic human right again?

Quote:

---

Chud told the guy 'I hope your day gets better. God bless'

- Chud had already walked away. Was about 70-100 yards away

- The man went out of his way to run up on Chud while his back was turned

- HE confronted Chud

- HE punched Chud in his face

---

Assuming arguendo those allegations are corroborated, was the punch sufficient to warrant use of deadly force? Was that reasonable under the circumstances?

Again, I am not taking any position here as I simply don't have enough facts yet but it will be a messy case.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He went way over the line and into provocation territory. If you delve into his social media, he's been looking for a fight for a while. You can't do that and then claim "free speech" or self-defense.

---

Actually, I think you can. I get where you are coming from, I just don't think the law should work that way. That just because he has said these things he could never be a victim of an assault with a self defense claim, just bc "he deserves it".

This guys is nuts though...a lot of these trashy social media provacateurs only pick on the weak...most of the black ones I have seen antagonize and harrass white and asian people who they know won't do sh**...or who might punch them but aren't going to stomp their lights out or kill them over words. He chose to F with the 6/60 crowd like an absolute psycho. That's the one group you simply cannot do this to.

And Americans (aka potential jurors) of all races have mostly been brainwashed since kindergarten to think it's ok since they have grievances over the past. Even if it turns out he shouldn't according to the facts of the case, this guy is going to do very hard time.

---

There are cases where self defense would be justified. If he was just walking down the street and someone started assaulting him unprovoked, then he'd have a very strong self defense case. But this situation isn't that. It's not just his speech that got him in trouble. It's his actions before and after that are going to make a defense attorney very rich (assuming he has money, which I bet he does) and land him in general pop.

---

Just curious what makes you think he has money. He had a handyman/small scale construction business that he said was taken from him (probably his own failure and he can't own up to it). Maybe there is some daddy's money that we don't know about, but it's a leap imo to assume he has enough money to "make a defense attorney rich" imo.

The essence of your post though seems to kind of be arguing in favor of thought crimes. i.e. some Chicago underground rapper or banger talking sh** online, then he gets violently confronted and attacked for it, and uses a legal weapon to defend himself. I am removing the racial component from the equation, which I think a lot of people are overly focused on. If you say mean things, and have a track record of saying mean things, do you have to void any and all right to defend yourself if someone attacks you for saying mean things?

If he fries, it will very likely be because of his thought crimes and the fact that he was constantly provoking people prior to this incident. Not for the incident itself.

---

Hardly. I'm a pretty solid First Amendment absolutist. This guy tries to wrap himself in the cloak of free speech, but this crossed the line. Again, go look through his social media. He was looking for a fight, not just a confrontation. There's a mile of difference between defending what Fred Phelps of "God Hates ***s" fame has to say (because I do defend his right to say it), and defending Chud. He can hate all the black people he want; that's his right to be an idiot. He crossed the line, and he's going to pay.

Yes, the provocation in prior incidents is going to be a huge problem for him. Also him saying "there's a dead chimp on the ground" after the fact. He's made his case exponentially more difficult because he can't shut the **** up.

---

So if a KKK member does some rabble rousing online and talks sh** about a certain race...is then violently assaulted by a person by that race out in real life after saying something...he loses any and all right to defend himself with lethal force? I get that jurors are biased and emotional and would likely rule against him, but SHOULD he not have the right to defend himself? Or is this just a general principle, that if you talk sh** or disrespect someone, and they attack you, you have no right to defend yourself because you said mean words and deserve it?

---

That KKK member would have the right to defend himself, as would anyone. But again, the facts here are different.

Quote:

---

IMO this should ONLY be about the altercation/shooting on May 13.

---

I understand that's your opinion, but that's not what the law is. Allllllll his prior bad acts are going to be admitted.

Quote:

---

By your logic, some posters on here would not be able to legally defend themselves from muslim or middle eastern attackers because they have made angry comments online about "glassing the middle east".

---

Of course they would. That's an asinine suggestion.

---

So by this logic, as a result of his past actions and words (which we all agree are stupid and hateful) Chud could never legally defend himself against any black attackers...even if he was just minding his business and they recognized him from his online postings and started assaulting him...or maybe it's just 100% random.

But he would have to let them beat him or kill him because he has said crazy mean and rascist things online and therefore provoked the attack?

Is there any statute of limitations or anything, after which period of time he can eventually legally defend himself against non-white attackers?

---

In that scenario, of course he could defend himself. That's not a hard call. (Btw, who taught you logic? You've been inferring things I've never said, and trying to string things together that are distinctly different.)

---

You guys are literally arguing that someone's past patterns of behavior should determine whether lethal force is justified or not in a future unrelated scenario. I am asking when that resets and he regains his basic fundamental human right to defend himself from violent attackers. When is the slate wiped clean and prosecutors can no longer say "see, he was an ******* that liked to antagonize black people, so he had a duty to let this black guy beat him to death".

Take race out of the equation and expand it to other groups. Surely you can see the slippery slope of this line of thinking?

"Attempted" crimes are weird. We know you wanted to murder that guy, and took action, but only because you missed, we're gonna give you a lesser punishment.