That doesn't really mean anything given this case is one of one for that judge. The totality of the surrounding circumstances (his notoriety combined with his intentional and sustained status as an agitator, his prior criminal record, the fact that he was already out on bond for another offense, etc.) makes this incomparable to any other case that judge has likely presided over.

This guy is very likely to incite another violent confrontation in a public space, and his notoriety combined with the politically divisive nature of this case makes him a huge flight risk.

TAMUallen said:

---

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

---

Forgive me for not trusting any "journalist" that uses "legal fleshlight". Totally unbiased and trustworthy.

Btw, I specifically didn't use that journalists link. I put the AP article which is much higher on the trustworthiness scale than Andrew Branca

That's very very very assumptive. In comparison to far worse cases, the bond is not making much sense.

Iced-T14 said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Iced-T14 said:

---

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

---

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

---

Forgive me for not trusting any "journalist" that uses "legal fleshlight". Totally unbiased and trustworthy.

Btw, I specifically didn't use that journalists link. I put the AP article which is much higher on the trustworthiness scale than Andrew Branca

---

AP is on the same scale as a random X post, that does not mean the X post is good. Both have no credibility, AP lies all the time and twists articles.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

That doesn't really mean anything given this case is one of one for that judge. The totality of the surrounding circumstances (his notoriety combined with his intentional and sustained status as an agitator, his prior criminal record, the fact that he was already out on bond for another offense, etc.) makes this incomparable to any other case that judge has likely presided over.

This guy is very likely to incite another violent confrontation in a public space, and his notoriety combined with the politically divisive nature of this case makes him a huge flight risk.

---

Quote:

---

Tennessee law says prior criminal record is a factor in setting bail.

But, Under DA Robert Nash, having one or four, got you a lower bail.

-Gallion had a violent felony conviction and three prior cases before catching the same charge as Eatherly. His bail was $2,500.

-Bristol had four separate murder cases across three years and never exceeded $100,000.

Eatherly has zero prior felonies, one misdemeanor harassment case with a small bond, and a court that declared him too poor to afford a lawyer.

Nash requested complete detention.

The judge set $1,250,000.

Discrimination. Bias. Corruption. Targeted harassment... Perpetuated by the people in charge of "Justice"

---

Source: https://x.com/ArchetypeTheory

The dude needs to stay in jail for his own good. My guess is the moment he's released he is back out on the street filming himself and people are going to take another crack at him.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

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.

---

regardless of how you feel about the case, can we not let the discussion turn into this tired "but they say it too" thing? we're all adults that can clearly differentiate between when a black person uses it as a term of endearment and when someone uses it as hate speech. nothing exists without context. would you also suggest someone screwing around with their friends calling them a b jokingly is no different than someone calling someone a b in a heated confrontation meant to disrespect them? nobody is confused about the context in which the word was used in this case, and it's the context that makes it problematic. not simply that he used the word. and while i recognize that even as a term of endearment it's not usually acceptable for a white guy to use the word, it certainly wouldnt result in a situation like this. hell in many circles white guys who are believed to be genuine in their motivations and not simply trying to appropriate what they see as a cool cultural thing they want to do are given a pass. but i'm getting off in the weeds, the fact of the matter is we all know the difference here so let's not be intentionally obtuse in order to drum up a debate that largely isn't at play here. not that anyone will listen to me anyway


unrelated, but regarding the bail- it sort of seems like a fools errand trying to compare it to unrelated cases. you could construct all sorts of narratives going down that road, but at the end of the day i'm not sure it's going to show anything besides that judges are given a lot of latitude when setting bail. i'm sure the judge is aware of the publicity that this case has and of crowdfunding efforts and was determined to keep him off the streets. i assume the lower bail in the above murder/attempted murder examples were enough to keep those offenders off the streets as well, but i haven't checked so forgive me if im off base there. kinda seems like that would have been included in the graphic if it were the case though

Donated $500 to Chud..im fatigued at this point.

dixie whiskey said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

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.

---

regardless of how you feel about the case, can we not let the discussion turn into this tired "but they say it too" thing? we're all adults that can clearly differentiate between when a black person uses it as a term of endearment and when someone uses it as hate speech. nothing exists without context. would you also suggest someone screwing around with their friends calling them a b jokingly is no different than someone calling someone a b in a heated confrontation meant to disrespect them? nobody is confused about the context in which the word was used in this case, and it's the context that makes it problematic. not simply that he used the word. and while i recognize that even as a term of endearment it's not usually acceptable for a white guy to use the word, it certainly wouldnt result in a situation like this. hell in many circles white guys who are believed to be genuine in their motivations and not simply trying to appropriate what they see as a cool cultural thing they want to do are given a pass. but i'm getting off in the weeds, the fact of the matter is we all know the difference here so let's not be intentionally obtuse in order to drum up a debate that largely isn't at play here. not that anyone will listen to me anyway

---

He can say the word all he wants. Saying the word to a black person is not a death sentence or licensed to be beaten.(legally) sorry

Darthag11 said:

---

dixie whiskey said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

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.

---

regardless of how you feel about the case, can we not let the discussion turn into this tired "but they say it too" thing? we're all adults that can clearly differentiate between when a black person uses it as a term of endearment and when someone uses it as hate speech. nothing exists without context. would you also suggest someone screwing around with their friends calling them a b jokingly is no different than someone calling someone a b in a heated confrontation meant to disrespect them? nobody is confused about the context in which the word was used in this case, and it's the context that makes it problematic. not simply that he used the word. and while i recognize that even as a term of endearment it's not usually acceptable for a white guy to use the word, it certainly wouldnt result in a situation like this. hell in many circles white guys who are believed to be genuine in their motivations and not simply trying to appropriate what they see as a cool cultural thing they want to do are given a pass. but i'm getting off in the weeds, the fact of the matter is we all know the difference here so let's not be intentionally obtuse in order to drum up a debate that largely isn't at play here. not that anyone will listen to me anyway

---

He can say the word all he wants. Saying the word to a black person is not a death sentence or licensed to be beaten.(legally) sorry

---

ok? my post apparently went over your head if that's what you took from it, but it's not even close to what i said so i'm not sure what you're expecting here

Hardcore Greg said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

Hardcore Greg said:

---

He's not wrong that black people are disproportionately violent and by far most likely to kill or maim over words. But he's a f-ing idiot and a bad person.

I actually DM'd him when he first popped on the scene in Instagram. Essentially telling him to chill the f out and that he's going to eventually get smoked. Also told him that he should be acknowledging the good black people…like my amazing black neighbors….or at least the fact that they exist.

He essentially responded that he was friends with some good black people but that his life was over and he is losing his son and that "they took everything from me".

At that point I wrote him off as a fed or some type of operative. Looks like I was wrong and that he was sincere and truly is a broken individual. I am betting his ex ran off with a black man or something and he's borderline suicidal.

---

you dm people on IG?

---

Never had. I did with this guy though because he was postling wildly reckless and racist videos.

Shame me, don't care. Hope someone notices and you get the sense of gratification you are seeking.

---

I find it weird messaging strange dudes on IG why do you care what he is posting? Do you IG people when they are racist towards other groups??

No. But the result and consequence is both expected and entertaining.

dixie whiskey said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

dixie whiskey said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

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.

---

regardless of how you feel about the case, can we not let the discussion turn into this tired "but they say it too" thing? we're all adults that can clearly differentiate between when a black person uses it as a term of endearment and when someone uses it as hate speech. nothing exists without context. would you also suggest someone screwing around with their friends calling them a b jokingly is no different than someone calling someone a b in a heated confrontation meant to disrespect them? nobody is confused about the context in which the word was used in this case, and it's the context that makes it problematic. not simply that he used the word. and while i recognize that even as a term of endearment it's not usually acceptable for a white guy to use the word, it certainly wouldnt result in a situation like this. hell in many circles white guys who are believed to be genuine in their motivations and not simply trying to appropriate what they see as a cool cultural thing they want to do are given a pass. but i'm getting off in the weeds, the fact of the matter is we all know the difference here so let's not be intentionally obtuse in order to drum up a debate that largely isn't at play here. not that anyone will listen to me anyway

---

He can say the word all he wants. Saying the word to a black person is not a death sentence or licensed to be beaten.(legally) sorry

---

ok? my post apparently went over your head if that's what you took from it, but it's not even close to what i said so i'm not sure what you're expecting here

---

its exactly what you are saying don't play obtuse.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

No. But the result and consequence is both expected and entertaining.

---

funny you consider this entertainment

dixie whiskey said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

dixie whiskey said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

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.

---

regardless of how you feel about the case, can we not let the discussion turn into this tired "but they say it too" thing? we're all adults that can clearly differentiate between when a black person uses it as a term of endearment and when someone uses it as hate speech. nothing exists without context. would you also suggest someone screwing around with their friends calling them a b jokingly is no different than someone calling someone a b in a heated confrontation meant to disrespect them? nobody is confused about the context in which the word was used in this case, and it's the context that makes it problematic. not simply that he used the word. and while i recognize that even as a term of endearment it's not usually acceptable for a white guy to use the word, it certainly wouldnt result in a situation like this. hell in many circles white guys who are believed to be genuine in their motivations and not simply trying to appropriate what they see as a cool cultural thing they want to do are given a pass. but i'm getting off in the weeds, the fact of the matter is we all know the difference here so let's not be intentionally obtuse in order to drum up a debate that largely isn't at play here. not that anyone will listen to me anyway

---

He can say the word all he wants. Saying the word to a black person is not a death sentence or licensed to be beaten.(legally) sorry

---

ok? my post apparently went over your head if that's what you took from it, but it's not even close to what i said so i'm not sure what you're expecting here

---

It'd probably help if you didn't type like a 3rd grader.

Doesn't matter if he said the N word. That doesn't give someone the right to physically attack him.

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

dixie whiskey said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

dixie whiskey said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

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.

---

regardless of how you feel about the case, can we not let the discussion turn into this tired "but they say it too" thing? we're all adults that can clearly differentiate between when a black person uses it as a term of endearment and when someone uses it as hate speech. nothing exists without context. would you also suggest someone screwing around with their friends calling them a b jokingly is no different than someone calling someone a b in a heated confrontation meant to disrespect them? nobody is confused about the context in which the word was used in this case, and it's the context that makes it problematic. not simply that he used the word. and while i recognize that even as a term of endearment it's not usually acceptable for a white guy to use the word, it certainly wouldnt result in a situation like this. hell in many circles white guys who are believed to be genuine in their motivations and not simply trying to appropriate what they see as a cool cultural thing they want to do are given a pass. but i'm getting off in the weeds, the fact of the matter is we all know the difference here so let's not be intentionally obtuse in order to drum up a debate that largely isn't at play here. not that anyone will listen to me anyway

---

He can say the word all he wants. Saying the word to a black person is not a death sentence or licensed to be beaten.(legally) sorry

---

ok? my post apparently went over your head if that's what you took from it, but it's not even close to what i said so i'm not sure what you're expecting here

---

It'd probably help if you didn't type like a 3rd grader.

Doesn't matter if he said the N word. That doesn't give someone the right to physically attack him.

---

thanks for your contribution. can't wait to see what kind of insight you bring to the discussion next. i just hope it's on par with your level of reading comprehension

Darthag11 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

No. But the result and consequence is both expected and entertaining.

---

funny you consider this entertainment

---

A rage baiter gets into a fight he started and then ends up with a self inflicted gunshot wound, a massive bail, AND an attempted murder charge.

Man, this is gold!

I'd much rather people like this chode didn't survive to adulthood but the world is a fickle place.

quarter of million dollars raised for Chud, he will be fine.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Darthag11 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

No. But the result and consequence is both expected and entertaining.

---

funny you consider this entertainment

---

A rage baiter gets into a fight he started and then ends up with a self inflicted gunshot wound, a massive bail, AND an attempted murder charge.

Man, this is gold!

I'd much rather people like this chode didn't survive to adulthood but the world is a fickle place.

---

certainly seems like he's striving for the darwin award. i'm sure they're segregating him in jail while this plays out, but if he catches a prison sentence that's long enough to land him in a serious unit, it may well be a death sentence. if he has any brains, which i'm not sure there's any reason to suggest he does, he'd forget about bail and put all those donations toward an attorney. it's a really interesting case legally speaking but from a moral perspective, the guy seems like walking garbage and i won't lose any sleep over him facing consequences for his schtick.

Darthag11 said:

---

quarter of million dollars raised for Chud, he will be fine.

---

A fool and his money are soon parted

Im sticking to facts unlike some here who get triggered over a magic word.

My research shows DA Robert Nash doesn't seem to factor violent priors into any of his bond amounts.

- TCA 40-11-118 lists prior criminal record as a statutory factor in setting bail

- Antone Levell Gallion: prior aggravated assault, prior drugs, prior domestic violence,… pic.twitter.com/witAJi0Dyi

— αΩ - OPERATION FREE DALTON 'Chud the Builder' (@ArchetypeTheory) May 18, 2026

Quote:

---

- Antone Levell Gallion: prior aggravated assault, prior drugs, prior domestic violence, attempted murder bail $2,500

- Whitney Brown: killed her 2-month-old baby, first degree murder bail $50,000

- Tony Carl Bristol: four separate murder cases across three years, bail never exceeded $100,000

- DA Nash never requested no bond for any of them

- Dalton Eatherly: one misdemeanor, zero felony convictions, Nash requested complete detention, judge set $1,250,000

- The statute says priors matter. DA Nash's record says they only mattered once.

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Im sticking to facts unlike some here who get triggered over a magic word.

My research shows DA Robert Nash doesn't seem to factor violent priors into any of his bond amounts.

- TCA 40-11-118 lists prior criminal record as a statutory factor in setting bail

- Antone Levell Gallion: prior aggravated assault, prior drugs, prior domestic violence,… pic.twitter.com/witAJi0Dyi

— αΩ - OPERATION FREE DALTON 'Chud the Builder' (@ArchetypeTheory) May 18, 2026

Quote:

---

- Antone Levell Gallion: prior aggravated assault, prior drugs, prior domestic violence, attempted murder bail $2,500

- Whitney Brown: killed her 2-month-old baby, first degree murder bail $50,000

- Tony Carl Bristol: four separate murder cases across three years, bail never exceeded $100,000

- DA Nash never requested no bond for any of them

- Dalton Eatherly: one misdemeanor, zero felony convictions, Nash requested complete detention, judge set $1,250,000

- The statute says priors matter. DA Nash's record says they only mattered once.

---

---

maybe it's not supposed to be this way, ill defer to any lawyers that can shed some light here, but is it not the case that the defendants financial standing and ability to post the bail factor in to these decisions? how many of these other cases are actually bonding out? is it not possible a judge/da notices that there's some weird racist fundraiser going on for the guy that's brining in all sorts of money and thinks "well that's not a great look i'm gonna make sure this bail is sufficiently taxing on this case to ensure there's no chance he decides to run on account of it basically being not his money anyway, thus nothing he would miss… that would be very bad to happen when this is such a public ordeal"? kinda seems to me that would be a bigger factor than anything but again, i can't speak to the legality of such a thought process. common sense, however, seems like it favors that over some grand conspiracy against what, white people i guess?

He's pretty piss poor... its why he got into this.

If theyre factoring in anticipated funding in support of him, not a fair or legal method at all. This prosecution is already political.

It's interesting for sure. I'm loving the bail. Sometimes being an a-hole hits a nerve. Chode likes getting a rise out of people. Well, he got one out of the judge. Hahaha.

Should've doubled it again and see how much money can be bilked from idiot supporters.

Funny stuff.

TAMUallen said:

---

He's pretty piss poor... its why he got into this.

If theyre factoring in anticipated funding in support of him, not a fair or legal method at all. This prosecution is already political.

---

i'm not following the fundraising efforts closely, but was there not already a significant amount of money in play at the time of the decision? and is it truly illegal to factor in the fact that at the very least there are thousands upon thousands of people publicly stating their intention to contribute to his bail? especially if we're talking the DA which seems to be the suggested conspirator in play, are these really things not legal for a DA to consider when suggesting a bail… they're not the one setting it after all. i genuinely don't know the answers to these questions so im willing to concede any of these points, it just seems like this all could be explained in a way that's less conspiratorial

Bond and bail are separate things. The goal is to make it sufficient to help ensure the defendant shows up for the next hearing which usually would be the bail hearing. Bond is temporary. Bail has conditions but can last until trial if they don't violate those conditions. No show for bail hearing? Bond is forfeited and arrest warrant issued. No bail usually results after that.

Staff: can we get some civility on this thread? It's an animated topic and at the very source of the case it is about bad (unacceptable?) words, but the name calling by posters is going on repeat, the complete ignoring of facts, the incorrect claims, the changing of Chud to Chode etc. is preventing real attempts at discussing what has happened and is ongoing with a very contentious legal case due to derails and celebrations of the arrest/prosecution

aggiehawg said:

---

Bond and bail are separate things. The goal is to make it sufficient to help ensure the defendant shows up for the next hearing which usually would be the bail hearing. Bond is temporary. Bail has conditions but can last until trial if they don't violate those conditions. No show for bail hearing? Bond is forfeited and arrest warrant issued. No bail usually results after that.

---

if i flip flopped the terms i apologize, but that's sort of what i'm getting at- if there's all sorts of donations in play here, it seems reasonable to think that the guy could see that as money that was never really his to begin with and have no problem sacrificing to run… so if im a DA i would want to ensure that he isnt getting some easily attainable number in a very public court case… am i crazy in thinking that makes more sense than a conspiracy?


eta: also, as i've seen mentioned previously, if he was already on bail when this crime was alleged to have taken place, wouldn't that be a pretty huge factor in this, also probably more relevant than all the conspiracy leaning stuff?

You're not supposed to commit more crimes while you're out. So yes, it would factor into it.

Yall realize what that other case is?

The Davidson County CaseCharges: Theft of services (for an unpaid $371 food/drink bill, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

Incident Details: Eatherly refused to pay after causing a disruption and making racial statements while livestreaming at an Omni Hotel restaurant.

Case Status: He was released on a $5,000 bond for these charges with an arraignment in Davidson County scheduled for later in the summer.


Let's discuss facts and what's really going on. Put away the jump to conclusions mat since it is all I really see going on

dixie whiskey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Bond and bail are separate things. The goal is to make it sufficient to help ensure the defendant shows up for the next hearing which usually would be the bail hearing. Bond is temporary. Bail has conditions but can last until trial if they don't violate those conditions. No show for bail hearing? Bond is forfeited and arrest warrant issued. No bail usually results after that.

---

if i flip flopped the terms i apologize, but that's sort of what i'm getting at- if there's all sorts of donations in play here, it seems reasonable to think that the guy could see that as money that was never really his to begin with and have no problem sacrificing to run… so if im a DA i would want to ensure that he isnt getting some easily attainable number in a very public court case… am i crazy in thinking that makes more sense than a conspiracy?


eta: also, as i've seen mentioned previously, if he was already on bail when this crime was alleged to have taken place, wouldn't that be a pretty huge factor in this, also probably more relevant than all the conspiracy leaning stuff?

---

To be fair, I was less than precise myself. Bail can also include an amount of money that can be forfeited if one violates the terms of conditional release. OTOH, as we have seen very recently in blue states, no money bail is also becoming prevalent. And as could be expected, repeat offenses have become much more common. Nothing to lose. Momma isn't going to lose her home, for instance.

That case is nearly nothing as evidenced by getting out for 5k

Yet somehow, because it exists theres this thought that a record setting amount is appropriate in comparison to previous full on MURDER cases?

Im surprised it's been a few days and there's still no video of the incident if he was streaming it.

I mean I can kind of understand it based on the escalation.

Dude skips out on a bill while saying racist stuff. He's out on bond and shortly after gets into this altercation

It's clearly a pattern of escalating behavior. How else are you supposed to stop him from doing the same **** again.