💪 Tough Guys Dalton Levi Eatherly / Chud the Builder / ChudTheBuilder - Putting the hard r in retard. IRL streamer who provokes confrontations with Tennessee blacks and shot a guy while streaming.

[The Projects]

I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t even know what the hell you’re trying to say, lmao.

Sir, he's a patriot defending his country, what's there not to get? When I tell you something, freedom to taxation without representative means well regulated militia, shall not be infringed. This sort of thing is what America is all about.

 

[Übertroon]

The guy had openly stated that he wanted to kill someone for threatening him

He actually did not state a desire to, he said it was an inevitability. Most people can assume that prolonged interaction with violent people will lead to violent outcomes.

Would it be incitement for me to move to a low income black neighborhood as a white man, drive around in my brand new BMW SUV, and stating on social media that there will be a day where I will kill a robber?

 

[Myron]

View attachment 9008848
It's funny how your whole argument falls apart once you remove the person's race from the equation.

it says "cannot punish speech advocating for illegal activity unless it meets both criteria" but how was he advocating for illegal activity?

 

[ChampFantana]

It really is astonishing seeing how many inbred mongoloids in this thread refuse to understand what anarcho-tyranny is even when spelled out in ways that even a 5 year old could understand.

Congratulations lefties, you're below even 5 year olds in cognitive function.

 

[Übertroon]

it says "cannot punish speech advocating for illegal activity unless it meets both criteria" but how was he advocating for illegal activity?

I think some people are confusing "you want to fight? Come on, let's fight" with "are you going to fight?"
Asking if a person is violent or suggesting a person is violent is not the same as asking for a person to be violent

 

[anon101x]

For a group of people who outwardly hate word games, you sure play them a lot. The guy had openly stated that he wanted to kill someone for threatening him, while going out and provoking people. One might get the idea that his intentions are not exactly pure. I really don't see what that has to do with Charlie Kirk other than you trying to change the subject to something that people are emotional about.

Also, I somehow get the impression you read the first sentence of my post and didn't look at the rest of it.

They always do this.


They want to move the discussion further and further away from the actual facts and reality of Chud the person and what he was actually doing on stream, and instead keep trying to drift into a narrative of “the whites are under attack by blacks!” “Free speech is under attack!” You get the picture. Anything other than analytically looking at the actual video evidence and documentation of what the dude was really doing in town. I’d even go as far as to say I’m skeptical they even watch the streams at all outside of the highlight-reel clips posted.


Nobody is arguing that black crime stats aren’t insane or any of that bullshit. That’s not the discussion we’re having.


You’re trying to tell them Chud is a fucking lunatic grifter literally chasing around black people downtown with a gun, begging them to fight — which, to my surprise, actually might have even rehabilitated niggers for me a little bit because I’m surprised it took this long. They had more restraint than I thought before this whole thing happened.


But their rebuttals are always “yeah but did you see the highlight reel clips of the fight?” and it’s like, yeah… but did you see the 5-plus hours of live streaming before that, when he was doing everything in his power to beg for a fight so he could shoot somebody?

 

[Nickel Silver]

I am arguing that niggers are violent animals, and pointed out that their proclivity for violence turns even mundane, everyday interactions into lethal affairs because they're savages.

In my little conservative Christian corner of America when I was younger, black people were not savages that turned everyday interactions into lethal affairs.

This leads me to believe that violent tendencies aren't influenced by skin color so much as whether you were raised to believe "thou shalt not kill" or "black peepo dindu nuffin." The good black people I've met were raised on the former, not the ones whose fathers left them or internalized some SJW oppressed/oppressor dialectic.

And foolish as it may be to respond to petty provocations with fists, Chud as a ragebait streamer and gun violence fantasizer is by far the bigger nigger. The only thing he needs to achieve perfect niggerdom at this point is to be a top A&N poster.

 

[anon101x]

In my little conservative Christian corner of America when I was younger, black people were not savages that turned everyday interactions into lethal affairs.

This leads me to believe that violent tendencies aren't influenced by skin color so much as whether you were raised to believe "thou shalt not kill" or "black peepo dindu nuffin." The good black people I've met were raised on the former, not the ones whose fathers left them or internalized some SJW oppressed/oppressor dialectic.

And foolish as it may be to respond to petty provocations with fists, Chud as a ragebait streamer and gun violence fantasizer is by far the bigger nigger. The only thing he needs to achieve perfect niggerdom at this point is to be a top A&N poster.

If they actually watched the streams you’d see he damn near gets into a fight with a bunch of white people as well over the span of his “career”. Even tho his target was primarily blacks.

 

[BlueArmedDevil]

but how was he advocating for illegal activity?

From Eatherly's own words

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

His mistake was not adding "in minecraft" to the end of all his sentences, the legal experts of kiwifarms have assured me that makes anything you say legal.

 

[COCK SURE]

But their rebuttals are always “yeah but did you see the highlight reel clips of the fight?” and it’s like, yeah… but did you see the 5-plus hours of live streaming before that, when he was doing everything in his power to beg for a fight so he could shoot somebody?

i am going to make the mistake of trying to explain wiggerhood to you

He was not thinking, and nor was the nig, both were acting on pure impulse. Assuming that either party was working under some kind of calculated plan is post-hoc giving them an immense amount of undue credit. I don't know how long (I would assume little to none) you or most of this thread have existed in the proximity of wiggers/niggers but they do this shit on the reg for next to no coherent reason. They talk shit, get hit, get mad they got hit, then start a blood feud over it.

He's less of a lunatic and more a strain of severely degenerative retard that's all too abundant in the rural South. Ethan Ralph really isn't that different, though at least he's more entertaining about it.

The legal pilpul here is largely wasted effort as a result because neither party was reasoned or had any sort of appropriate justification. It's backwater tribal retardation at its finest.

 

[Septic Tank Bomber]

Yes he's a jackass fucking with restaurant and wagies (even if it's a pajeet)
But the shooting? He did nothing wrong he did everything correct tell the nigger not chimping out next time.

 

[Logoden]

I’m going to be honest with you. I don’t even know what the hell you’re trying to say, lmao.

The nigger had a choice. He decided to make thing worse for both of them and risk his own life for nearly no gain instead of walking away with his health intact.

I have been in similar situation before and contrary to this nigger, I did not chose to make things violent. Knifing or punching someone for words without threats(aka having good reasons to act) is not worth it.

Anyone with half a brain and decent martial training(with anything that can be lethal) knows very well a fight can go from alright to lethal in seconds. The nig' acted impulsivly or with intent by coming back to punch him(if it is true), with or without knowing the white rat was armed, it was a choice.

If he really felt threatened, he should have walked away and called the police. As far as I know, the police there don’t take people who might be armed lightly.

 

[Potentially Criminal]

You're aware that incitement isn't protected speech, right? The Supreme Court has even ruled on this. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

You should learn about the concept of "fighting words" and how certain words are intended to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)



Regardless of case law, Chud has a big problem and it's the same one we all face: your jury will be a bunch of normies who are going to see two assholes at best. At worst, they just see you as an asshole. A jury can convict you out of sheer dislike and there's no way to reverse that decision.

Chud and the guy he shot, strapped on their tard armor and decided to tard joust in public.

 

[The Projects]

He actually did not state a desire to, he said it was an inevitability. Most people can assume that prolonged interaction with violent people will lead to violent outcomes.

Subtle. There's those word games again! You really oughta consider doing this for a living, Mr. Goodman!

Would it be incitement for me to move to a low income black neighborhood as a white man, drive around in my brand new BMW SUV, and stating on social media that there will be a day where I will kill a robber?

Are you going around picking fights with those people in your brand new BMW, are you confronting them, hurling insults, and then falling back on your weapons when the 18-30 year old men (the most notoriously violent cohort of any group) you're arguing with take issue with it? Do you record it and make it highly public, while making money off all this? Do you do it often enough to become notorious in your community over it?
Then yes.

Defending your property is very different than shooting a man who you have publicly provoked into violence by directly insulting after having been a nuisance on the community, that being said, it's generally not a good idea to post about killing anybody online. The legal system cares a lot about intent, and talking about your desire to jump to violence is highly frowned upon, because yes, insinuating the necessity of violence indicates an unwillingness to de-escalate, and therefore a want for violence.

Tennessee IS a no-retreat state, but what I'm reading seems to suggest that this guy would be very clearly in the wrong:

Tennessee Code Title 39. Criminal Offenses § 39-11-611
In essence, what this is saying is that in Tennessee you cannot use deadly force against a person if you have provoked them into attacking you. Now you may notice that "unless" afterwards, the unless goes onto say that if you HAVE provoked somebody, and you abandon your use of force, or communicate your intent to abandon your use of force, and they STILL continue to attack you, deadly force is permissible.

Pretty clear cut! So Mr. Chud went up to a Black guy, probably called him racial slurs, the guy recognized him for being a blight on the community, took offense to all of this and attacked him, so Mr. Chud shot him with no attempt at de-escalation. He's a criminal!
But the Tennessee stand your ground penal code is above, so please, prove me wrong!

 

[anon101x]

The nigger had a choice. He decided to make thing worse for both of them and risk his own life for nearly no gain instead of walking away with his health intact.

I have been in similar situation before and contrary to this nigger, I did not chose to make things violent. Knifing or punching someone for words without threats(aka having good reasons to act) is not worth it.

Anyone with half a brain and decent martial training(with anything that can be lethal) knows very well a fight can go from alright to lethal in seconds. The nig' acted impulsivly or with intent by coming back to punch him(if it is true), with or without knowing the white rat was armed, it was a choice.

If he really felt threatened, he should have walked away and called the police. As far as I know, the police there don’t take people who might be armed lightly.

Sure, but I think the point of contention here is that the whole thing is moot.


if you go looking for a fight long enough, you’ll find one. And that chud isn’t making some grand statement on Blacks.


He’s a grifter profiting off a false narrative—playing free speech warrior by targeting Black people. There’s no white savior here. He’s just blanketing himself in bullshit. He’s an attention-whoring nuisance, a streamer actively undermining conceal-and-carry laws that are already on shaky ground, all for donos and clout. (No, I’m not disputing niggers being violent. I fully acknowledge the Black crime stats.)


That’s all I’m saying. We seem to agree on a lot of other things anyway.


I also believe that me, as a white person (whooooaaaa buddddyyyy, power level), could antagonize the right white dude hard enough to get into a fight if I tried.


So the whole point becomes moot. At the end of the day, this isn’t really a conversation about race. It’s about a grifter perverting the discourse and pretending to be something he’s not.

 

[Onepumpplumpchump]

Been watching this since it happened chud is a retard dont get me wrong but he shot in self defense. He had left after he asked the black guy if he was going to chimp out. The guy literally went out of his way to attack him from what Im to understand.

 

[ChexMix88]

Fuck niggers

 

[Übertroon]

Been watching this since it happened chud is a retard dont get me wrong but he shot in self defense. He had left after he asked the black guy if he was going to chimp out. The guy literally went out of his way to attack him from what Im to understand.

If it's correct that one of the parties left, therefore deescalating the situation, then the black man attacked, it's outright self defense, but we're doing a lot of presuming based on zero evidence here.

 

[COCK SURE]

Chud and the guy he shot, strapped on their tard armor and decided to tard joust in public.

If I can add to this, one of the big intellectual hurdles to clear regarding this is that morals have no real place in legislation/judicial precedent.

The law does not dictate morality, it however does use moral rhetoric as part of the argumentative game to get to a regulated state. The purpose of law is to regulate activity and keep the system functioning in a desired manner by providing do's and don'ts to the regulators and regulated. This distinction is important because legal discussion (especially here) is utterly lousy with moralfaggotry polluting what can otherwise be a valid prediction of the outcome.

Frankly, both parties should be beaten with hammers for different reasons, both related to being retards, but that's a moral statement. The practical response is, as quoted, "both of you are retarded, whoever has the most appropriately underhanded attorney wins."