When are videos and/or tweets that did not occur on May 13 considered inadmissible in court?

It has been revealed that the same Tennessee court which slapped Chud the Builder with a $1.25 million bond for a non fatal shooting handed a black man, Antwane Crenshaw, a measly $250,000 bond after he killed someone unprovoked. pic.twitter.com/3JUJ0Pld7w

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) May 16, 2026

Gaeilge said:

---

This could complicate his self-defense claim.

According to eyewitnesses names being withheld Chud grabbed his gun before the fight even started.

— 0HOUR1 (@0hour1) May 15, 2026

---

"Grabbed" as in pulled out, or "grabbed" as in put his hand on it.

The former, maybe. The latter should not whatsoever.

Also, just because "witness" says it happen, doesn't make it true. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable so if only one person is making the claim, then it should automatically be suspect.

And I know nothing about whoever the heck Chud is. Never heard of him before this thread.

Rapier108 said:

---

Gaeilge said:

---

This could complicate his self-defense claim.

According to eyewitnesses names being withheld Chud grabbed his gun before the fight even started.

— 0HOUR1 (@0hour1) May 15, 2026

---

"Grabbed" as in pulled out, or "grabbed" as in put his hand on it.

The former, maybe. The latter should not whatsoever.

Also, just because "witness" says it happen, doesn't make it true. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable so if only one person is making the claim, then it should automatically be suspect.

And I know nothing about whoever the heck Chud is. Never heard of him before this thread.

---

It appears nobody knows what really happened as of now.

A big thing would be recordings. It's what he did. He said stupid and mean things to get reactions and viewers while being broadcast live. The ridiculous reactions he received then could be made into YouTube, insta, tiktok clips and he was becoming rapidly popular. I hadnt heard of him until a week or two ago then he kept popping up. The recording will help or hurt him tremendously

Rapier108 said:

---

It has been revealed that the same Tennessee court which slapped Chud the Builder with a $1.25 million bond for a non fatal shooting handed a black man, Antwane Crenshaw, a measly $250,000 bond after he killed someone unprovoked. pic.twitter.com/3JUJ0Pld7w

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) May 16, 2026

---

He was already out on bond for some other charges. If you commit other more serious crimes while free on bond, a judge is going to remind you harder.

Quote:

---

He was already out on bond for some other charges. If you commit other more serious crimes while free on bond, a judge is going to remind you harder.

---

That other charge was the reason he was even at the courthouse that day. so agree. Judge will not look at that kindly.

Source is pro Chud, so taken with more than a grain of salt but if these claims are even mostly true then this is nothing but messy in trial

Language warning for top tweet with witness account

It’s now starting to come out that Chud reached for mace. Not his gun.

The guy went for Chud’s gun and they struggled over it which is why Chud was also shot.

— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) May 16, 2026

HTownAg98 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

It has been revealed that the same Tennessee court which slapped Chud the Builder with a $1.25 million bond for a non fatal shooting handed a black man, Antwane Crenshaw, a measly $250,000 bond after he killed someone unprovoked. pic.twitter.com/3JUJ0Pld7w

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) May 16, 2026

---

He was already out on bond for some other charges. If you commit other more serious crimes while free on bond, a judge is going to remind you harder.

---

Judge said bond was high due to the charges of this case and the number of people at and outside of courthouse

So, this Chode got shot with his own gun but didn't die?

Bummer.

I hope he goes to prison for baiting. He clearly didn't have a Daddy. I tested my free speech as a child and said "shut up" and that was the absolute last time I did that ever.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Obviously missing a LOT of data about if this was a good shoot or not but expect the media to come out and tell us Free Speech doesn't apply to using naughty words and anything done to someone who uses them is completely justified

---

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any repercussions from anyone.

Speech alone, including hate speech, is not legal justification to threaten or assault someone. But imho sometimes words deserve an ass beating, legal or not.


This will come down to whether the escalation from words to force to deadly force was justified on his end. That will depend on specifics the public doesknow yet, and local penal code. If he insitgated verbally and responded to non deadly force with deadly force, he's going to be in some deep *****

Ogre09 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Obviously missing a LOT of data about if this was a good shoot or not but expect the media to come out and tell us Free Speech doesn't apply to using naughty words and anything done to someone who uses them is completely justified

---

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any repercussions from anyone.

Speech alone, including hate speech, is not legal justification to threaten or assault someone. But imho sometimes words deserve an ass beating, legal or not.


This will come down to whether the escalation from words to force to deadly force was justified on his end. That will depend on specifics the public doesknow yet, and local penal code. If he insitgated verbally and responded to non deadly force with deadly force, he's going to be in some deep *****

---

This not a First Amendment case. At best, it is an imperfect (yes that's a term) self defense/excessive use of force case. Very fact heavy, less law. And that means a jury will decide what those facts are.

And that will be heavily influenced by how much of his social media presence the jury hears. The judge will be making those admissibility decisions.. The key test will be how probative they are as to a material fact* versus how prejudicial to the defendant.

* The charge includes premeditation. That becomes an issue of material fact, IMO, so some will be admitted for that reason.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ogre09 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Obviously missing a LOT of data about if this was a good shoot or not but expect the media to come out and tell us Free Speech doesn't apply to using naughty words and anything done to someone who uses them is completely justified

---

Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any repercussions from anyone.

Speech alone, including hate speech, is not legal justification to threaten or assault someone. But imho sometimes words deserve an ass beating, legal or not.


This will come down to whether the escalation from words to force to deadly force was justified on his end. That will depend on specifics the public doesknow yet, and local penal code. If he insitgated verbally and responded to non deadly force with deadly force, he's going to be in some deep *****

---

This not a First Amendment case. At best, it is an imperfect (yes that's a term) self defense/excessive use of force case. Very fact heavy, less law. And that means a jury will decide what those facts are.

And that will be heavily influenced by how much of his social media presence the jury hears. The judge will be making those admissibility decisions.. The key test will be how probative they are as to a material fact* versus how prejudicial to the defendant.

* The charge includes premeditation. That becomes an issue of material fact, IMO, so some will be admitted for that reason.

---

Oof. Having your fate determined by a jury of your peers….I've seen my peers and that's enough to make sure I dont do stupid things to where their services are needed.

---

Quite ironic considering your previous post.

Listened to a Branca stream about this case and he had a few more details. The only video he has is not at all helpful as cannot even tell who is who. There were two uniformed officers present trying to separate them but not evident if they were wearing body cams.

aggiehawg said:

---

Listened to a Branca stream about this case and he had a few more details. The only video he has is not at all helpful as cannot even tell who is who. There were two uniformed officers present trying to separate them but not evident if they were wearing body cams.

---

Saw that as well. I'd be shocked if recordings, audio or video, don't start getting leaked. Either side will likely do this as I'm seeing this as a quite controversial trial... very Rittenhouse-esque. If national media makes this a headliner then things are about to be crazy.

I did note that Chud is banned from making public statements on the case

TAMUallen said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Listened to a Branca stream about this case and he had a few more details. The only video he has is not at all helpful as cannot even tell who is who. There were two uniformed officers present trying to separate them but not evident if they were wearing body cams.

---

Saw that as well. I'd be shocked if recordings, audio or video, don't start getting leaked. Either side will likely do this as I'm seeing this as a quite controversial trial... very Rittenhouse-esque. If national media makes this a headliner then things are about to be crazy.

I did note that Chud is banned from making public statements on the case

---

Rittenhouse was extremely fortunate there was so much video of he precise moments he fired and what happened to elicit that response.(Well, except for the Rosenbaum shooting but he had a very credible social journalist who was right there watching it unfold and even had the presence of mind to get himself out of the line of fire as Kyle and Rosebaum were struggling over the rifle.) Saved Rittenhouse's bacon.

Then there was the George Floyd viral video. Turned out that ws very misleading but it was too much to overcome (especially since the jury ontl saw it three dozen times). Video ate Chauvin's bacon.

Chud needs experienced and very good defense counsel. The sooner the better.

Seeing rumors that his defense is not wanting to be involved. Also seeing that he doesn't have money, or didn't have much recently. No clue if his streaming had started bringing in much more as it became more popular but his givesendgo is now at 218k and last night saw another streamer trying to get Chud's contact information to supposedly donate 100k to him.

TAMUallen said:

---

Seeing rumors that his defense is not wanting to be involved. Also seeing that he doesn't have money, or didn't have much recently. No clue if his streaming had started bringing in much more as it became more popular but his givesendgo is now at 218k and last night saw another streamer trying to get Chud's contact information to supposedly donate 100k to him.

---

Thorny question, with all of this attention his social media posts will get, will they still be monetized or not? Or just taken down altogether?

aggiehawg said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Seeing rumors that his defense is not wanting to be involved. Also seeing that he doesn't have money, or didn't have much recently. No clue if his streaming had started bringing in much more as it became more popular but his givesendgo is now at 218k and last night saw another streamer trying to get Chud's contact information to supposedly donate 100k to him.

---

Thorny question, with all of this attention his social media posts will get, will they still be monetized or not? Or just taken down altogether?

---

No idea. Never watched his livestreams but wherever broadcast it didn't seem to care about it before this escalation. I'd suspect it's all still monetized unless outcry is greater than potential earnings

Quote:

---

No idea. Never watched his livestreams but wherever broadcast it didn't seem to care about it before this escalation. I'd suspect it's all still monetized unless outcry is greater than potential earnings

---

Never heard of the guy until this thread. Have not watched a second of his content other than what is in this thread. But because I do watch lawtubers, I know they can be demonetized if youtube doesn't like their content. (Never show a that you own a gun. Can talk about it, but don't flash it on screen for instance.)

So if I would expect anyone to be demonetized, it would be this guy.

Doubt he will be offered a plea deal but if his lawyers can get him down to three or less years, he should take it instead of running the risk of going to trial. (My .02.)

Let the astronaut who has never called his friend/cohort a n-word cast the first stone.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I hate this ****** with ever fiber of my being, Im just wondering why its OK for black people to call their friends diminutive phrases and thats basically all good, but when a person with different color skin, that makes it a problem where they can react violently with zero consequences.

---

He set himself up for that. Doesn't matter if that is right or wrong. Not a First Amendment case.

I feel ya badmoonrisin

It's hard to state things on this and not get roped in.

It's strange as I see more about this. His first videos that made him famous and some pretty civil discussions with other people (where he's calm and theyre threatening) while still using words that most dont allow, doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as the portrayal of him I've so far seen. I'll admit that I havent seen very much of his stuff, so others (like those already celebrating his demise with equally non existent evidence) don't come at me saying "oh yea? You like this ahole? Look at what he's done and said"

aggiehawg said:

---

Listened to a Branca stream about this case and he had a few more details. The only video he has is not at all helpful as cannot even tell who is who. There were two uniformed officers present trying to separate them but not evident if they were wearing body cams.

---

More from Branca pointing out the bond

Yes, bail for Rittenhouse was set at $2 million. And George Zimmerman's bail was set at $1.5 million (adjusted to 2026 dollars).

But I'm not sure that's making the point you think it's making. After all, both the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse prosecutions were utterly politically… pic.twitter.com/zx2CliatHT

— Andrew Branca Show (@TheBrancaShow) May 16, 2026

This is enormously valuable. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone do anything this substantive and concrete in terms of bond argument for a defendant before in my career. Kudos to you for this. https://t.co/pjeoyT6afp

— Andrew Branca Show (@TheBrancaShow) May 17, 2026

Looks like he wasn't only the aggressor, but actively reached threatening with the gun prior to any punches being thrown. Time to lock Chode up for a longgggg time

https://apnews.com/article/chud-builder-shooting-courthouse-tennessee-16ebdea78fd1020022b2a095b7ac8cc7

An article from the AP that's quoting the…. Arrest warrant. Yep, much less trustworthy than randoms on X

Iced-T14 said:

---

An article from the AP that's quoting the…. Arrest warrant. Yep, much less trustworthy than randoms on X

---

Do you read? Appears not. I said to read the discussion. Have not done that either.

aggiehawg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I hate this ****** with ever fiber of my being, Im just wondering why its OK for black people to call their friends diminutive phrases and thats basically all good, but when a person with different color skin, that makes it a problem where they can react violently with zero consequences.

---

He set himself up for that. Doesn't matter if that is right or wrong. Not a First Amendment case.

---

My question was not a legal one, but a moral one. I guarantee you that the person who beat his ass up has said that word orders of magnitude more than this dumbass. That's not a problem, but when a white person says that name black people basically get a license do whatever they want to them, free from consequences.

i dont think anyone should use that word towards anyone, if it's as bad as they insist it is.

I pulled every murder and attempted murder case from Montgomery County's public court records under DA Robert Nash. 16 cases. Not one exceeded $250,000 bail.
Nash never requested no bond for any of them.

Then Dalton Eatherly was charged with attempted murder where nobody died,… pic.twitter.com/XOSpJTgID3

— αΩ - OPERATION FREE DALTON 'Chud the Builder' (@ArchetypeTheory) May 17, 2026

Bail is going to need to be cut significantly on the 21st or this is not looking good.

Iced-T14 said:

---

An article from the AP that's quoting the…. Arrest warrant. Yep, much less trustworthy than randoms on X

---

Regarding the Dalton "Chud the Builder" Eatherly prosecution, I see a lot of people making a big deal out of a media report purporting to share information from the arrest warrant or affidavit (they're unclear), information claimed to definitively disprove any claim Chud might… pic.twitter.com/Mrim4l93wM

— Andrew Branca Show (@TheBrancaShow) May 17, 2026

Quote:

---

First, even the information presented in the media report--that Chud took a "bladed stance" and "reached for his gun" BEFORE Joshua Foxx's attack made contact--does not disprove self-defense in any way. Chud is not required to allow himself to be struck by Foxx before he can take reasonable steps in preparation of self-defense.

Second, a media report is not the warrant. Journalists generally are among the dumbest "professional" class in existence. Placing any weight on what a journalist has to say about any official document is foolhardy in the extreme.

Third, even the warrant itself IS NOT EVIDENCE. It is how the police wish to portray the events, in a manner to support the arrest and charging preferences of the prosecution. I have seen many warrants that were full of claimed facts later demonstrably proven to be untrue. I have seen many warrants which were simply jam packed with outright lies. The utility of the warrant for analysis purposes is not it's "truth," which could well be zero, but merely that it tells us how the state intends to portray what happened--their narrative of guilt.

(Incidentally, if you like this kind of use-of-force legal analysis stuff, you might consider grabbing my FREE book, "The Law of Self Defense: Principles" that explains all this stuff in pain English. Get it HERE: http://lawofselfdefense.com/freebook
)

Fourth, the media report everyone is using to load up their legal Fleshlight was produced by this person. Make of that what you will.

---

This is why you don't latch onto the first things that come out and shows how little we know