ChudTheBuilder, 1A, Stand Your Ground

[Rap]

This thread tracks thoughts and predictions as Dalton Eatherly's attempted murder case moves forward.
My predictions: Stand your ground/ self-defense arguments will fail based on Eatherly provoking the fight (fighting words), and escalating to lethal force. Eatherly clearly spelled out his intent in his social media postings before his encounter with Joshua Fox.

 

[Darth]

I’ve not seen the clip of the incident of one exists.

At the time of the incident, not before or in social media, in the moments directly preceding, were these “fighting words” said?

Even then, I’m firmly in the camp that violence is never justified for words. Even that “real bad word” that some people feel gives them a free pass to assault others.

 

[Rap]

I’ve not seen the clip of the incident of one exists.

At the time of the incident, not before or in social media, in the moments directly preceding, were these “fighting words” said?

Even then, I’m firmly in the camp that violence is never justified for words. Even that “real bad word” that some people feel gives them a free pass to assault others.

The verbal provocations were the proximate cause of the fight, in my opinion.
So you believe the Fighting Words doctrine should be struck? And regardless, you acknowledge that this case will be adjudicated based on what the law currently holds, right?

 

[Darth]

The verbal provocations were the proximate cause of the fight, in my opinion.
So you believe the Fighting Words doctrine should be struck? And regardless, you acknowledge that this case will be adjudicated based on what the law currently holds, right?

So yeah instead of just making up things that weren’t even remotely close to what I said, let’s keep things contained to what was quoted.

1) In the moments directly preceding the shoot, did this person say these “fighting words?”

2) I’m not terribly familiar with the doctrine. If it is anything close to “you can’t say things that upset someone because then they can attack you and you can’t do anything about it”, then I feel it would have no place.

3) I don’t even know where you dreamed up that last line from, but I acknowledge nothing of the sort. I feel he will be found guilty of at least something because of the racial disparity, as we sit here on the 6th year anniversary of George Floyd’s death.

 

[Rap]

So yeah instead of just making up things that weren’t even remotely close to what I said, let’s keep things contained to what was quoted.

1) In the moments directly preceding the shoot, did this person say these “fighting words?”

2) I’m not terribly familiar with the doctrine. If it is anything close to “you can’t say things that upset someone because then they can attack you and you can’t do anything about it”, then I feel it would have no place.

3) I don’t even know where you dreamed up that last line from, but I acknowledge nothing of the sort. I feel he will be found guilty of at least something because of the racial disparity, as we sit here on the 6th year anniversary of George Floyd’s death.

I'll feed you this starter pack. Going forward, you will need to do your own research.

From Google:

The purpose of the "fighting words" doctrine is to maintain public peace and safety by allowing the government to punish speech that is inherently likely to provoke an immediate, violent physical retaliation from the person to whom it is addressed.

Key Characteristics
To qualify as unprotected speech under the doctrine, the words must meet a strict criteria:

• Directly targeted: They must be a direct, personal insult aimed at a specific individual.
• Provocative: They must be of a nature that an average, ordinary person would interpret as an inherent challenge or catalyst to fight.
• Low social value: The Supreme Court determined that because such speech is intended only to cause emotional injury or incite a brawl, it contains no "essential part of any exposition of ideas". Therefore, its value is far outweighed by the need to maintain social order and public safety.

---
Eatherly's verbal provocations took place immediately before the fight began.

The bottom line is that Eatherly's actions will land him in prison.

 

[Rap]

https://x.com/ChudTheBuilder/status/2052353906319991154

 

[Grimscale]

Key Characteristics
To qualify as unprotected speech under the doctrine, the words must meet a strict criteria:

• Directly targeted: They must be a direct, personal insult aimed at a specific individual.
• Provocative: They must be of a nature that an average, ordinary person would interpret as an inherent challenge or catalyst to fight.
• Low social value: The Supreme Court determined that because such speech is intended only to cause emotional injury or incite a brawl, it contains no "essential part of any exposition of ideas". Therefore, its value is far outweighed by the need to maintain social order and public safety.

nice to see the 2nd isn't the only Right that is watered down and neutered based on "feelings".

I'm surprised the religious reich hasn't used "contains no essential part of any exposition of ideas" to get porn permanently banned.

 

[Criticalt]

I'll feed you this starter pack. Going forward, you will need to do your own research.

From Google:

The purpose of the "fighting words" doctrine is to maintain public peace and safety by allowing the government to punish speech that is inherently likely to provoke an immediate, violent physical retaliation from the person to whom it is addressed.

Key Characteristics
To qualify as unprotected speech under the doctrine, the words must meet a strict criteria:

• Directly targeted: They must be a direct, personal insult aimed at a specific individual.
• Provocative: They must be of a nature that an average, ordinary person would interpret as an inherent challenge or catalyst to fight.
• Low social value: The Supreme Court determined that because such speech is intended only to cause emotional injury or incite a brawl, it contains no "essential part of any exposition of ideas". Therefore, its value is far outweighed by the need to maintain social order and public safety.

---
Eatherly's verbal provocations took place immediately before the fight began.

The bottom line is that Eatherly's actions will land him in prison.

I know nothing of this case, but did a little digging about the "Fighting Words Doctrine", and also incitement.
In your own post it says, "allowing government to punish......"
This is meant to STOP a fight, not to end a fight.
In other words, a cop (government) could arrest someone for using fighting words, but you cannot attack or kill someone for using fighting words.
This doctrine does not permit someone to assault someone else.
From the little I read about this case just now, after a verbal argument, chud "stood in a bladed stance, and reached for a firearm".
A physical altercation took place, then chud opened fire.
So from the little I know......hes fucked!
There are ZERO words that can be spoken, where you are ALLOWED to get into a physical altercation. You can be arrested, but not punched, or reach for a firearm.
So chud will have to prove that the words Fox said to him caused him to fear for his life. Good luck with that.

 

[Rap]

I know nothing of this case, but did a little digging about the "Fighting Words Doctrine", and also incitement.
In your own post it says, "allowing government to punish......"
This is meant to STOP a fight, not to end a fight.
In other words, a cop (government) could arrest someone for using fighting words, but you cannot attack or kill someone for using fighting words.
This doctrine does not permit someone to assault someone else.
From the little I read about this case just now, after a verbal argument, chud "stood in a bladed stance, and reached for a firearm".
A physical altercation took place, then chud opened fire.
So from the little I know......hes fucked!
There are ZERO words that can be spoken, where you are ALLOWED to get into a physical altercation. You can be arrested, but not punched, or reach for a firearm.
So chud will have to prove that the words Fox said to him caused him to fear for his life. Good luck with that.

Concerning the fighting words doctrine, I agree that it does not "permit" the target of fighting words to assault the speaker. What it does is establish culpability on the part of the speaker for provoking the fight. That culpability matters when determining the order of events as the conflict escalated...

And I agree that "Chud" is screwed!

 

[GOPerfect]

A word is turned into "Fighting words" seems rather weak on some people.

I believe that here in Tennessee, Chud will be found not-guilty. If I were on that Jury, this is how I would cast my vote after the trial is over.

This is all I have to say on this topic.

 

[Rap]

A word is turned into "Fighting words" seems rather weak on some people.

I believe that here in Tennessee, Chud will be found not-guilty. If I were on that Jury, this is how I would cast my vote after the trial is over.

This is all I have to say on this topic.

Care to at least share your reasoning?

 

[GOPerfect]

Care to at least share your reasoning?

I watched the video.

At the time of the vicious attack, no "fighting words" could be heard. He was attacked due to his use to the dreaded word in the past. It is a vile word, I do not like it. I do not support the way he does things, But I fully support him exercising his Right of Free Speech. If others cannot handle their feelings due to a word, that is on them.

I am almost willing to bet money on the outcome of the trial, if it makes it to trial. It may not make it. More than likely will, there is however, a chance the charges are dismissed.

Law here in Tennessee is much, mush different than in NY.

I believe that the First Amendment is on trial here, they are using ol Chud fight this out.

 

[Rap]

I watched the video.

At the time of the vicious attack, no "fighting words" could be heard. He was attacked due to his use to the dreaded word in the past. It is a vile word, I do not like it. I do not support the way he does things, But I fully support him exercising his Right of Free Speech. If others cannot handle their feelings due to a word, that is on them.

I am almost willing to bet money on the outcome of the trial, if it makes it to trial. It may not make it. More than likely will, there is however, a chance the charges are dismissed.

Law here in Tennessee is much, mush different than in NY.

I believe that the First Amendment is on trial here, they are using ol Chud fight this out.

I agree, the limits of free speech are being tested.
Regardless of the fighting words bit, Chud escalated to and introduced deadly force. This, combined with his stated intention to cause such a scenario, is what will hang him.

 

[Celt]

Not related to this case, but in general the "fighting words" doctrine is something i can get behind in limited circumstances. If a credible threat of harm is made in the moments before violence erupts im ok with using force.

For example, if someone says "as soon as you turn your back im gonna stab you" and you respond with overwhelming violence, but not deadly physical force, I think thats a case of self defense. If in that altercation the guy then pulls out a knife and tries to stab you. To stop him from stabbing you, if you have to end the threat by ending him then i would think that its justified.

Now, if that same scenario played out, but instead of the threat he made he insulted your heritage, your mother, etc... i dont believe violence would be justified as a response.

 

[Rap]

Not related to this case, but in general the "fighting words" doctrine is something i can get behind in limited circumstances. If a credible threat of harm is made in the moments before violence erupts im ok with using force.

For example, if someone says "as soon as you turn your back im gonna stab you" and you respond with overwhelming violence, but not deadly physical force, I think thats a case of self defense. If in that altercation the guy then pulls out a knife and tries to stab you. To stop him from stabbing you, if you have to end the threat by ending him then i would think that its justified.

Now, if that same scenario played out, but instead of the threat he made he insulted your heritage, your mother, etc... i dont believe violence would be justified as a response.

I don't think physical violence is justified in response to a verbal insults, either (as opposed to threats as you mentioned). Verbal insults are a form of violence, however.
Additionally, invasion of personal space; sustained, personally directed provocation; and ultimately harassment are different matters.
Chud's behavior is forcing society to draw a clear line between what behavior is protected as personal expression, and what crosses over into pure antagonism in the public domain. It is shining a light on the "social contract" principle that societies depend on in order to function. Chud is trying to use the protection of constitutional rights to shield behavior that inherently destabilizes the peace those very rights are meant to protect. Note that Chud was typically armed (and often openly so) when engaging in his racial provocations. When an individual's "freedom" is used to terrorize/harass others, it violates the social contract. Liberty is not the license to abuse others.

 

[GOPerfect]

If we make a word, or words, a criminal act, then we do not have the First amendment. Period.

If a word is enough to set a person off, that person needs serious help with his/her feelings and emotions.

We cannot fall prey to feelings

 

[OwnTheRide]

Not related to this case, but in general the "fighting words" doctrine is something i can get behind in limited circumstances. If a credible threat of harm is made in the moments before violence erupts im ok with using force.

For example, if someone says "as soon as you turn your back im gonna stab you" and you respond with overwhelming violence, but not deadly physical force, I think thats a case of self defense. If in that altercation the guy then pulls out a knife and tries to stab you. To stop him from stabbing you, if you have to end the threat by ending him then i would think that its justified.

Now, if that same scenario played out, but instead of the threat he made he insulted your heritage, your mother, etc... i dont believe violence would be justified as a response.

The example you give is not "fighting words." It is a threat, which, if a "reasonable person" would believe were sincere, could respond to with physical force or even deadly physical force (though you'd likely need to convince a jury that it was a threat and that you were reasonable).

"Fighting words" are basically legally-protected speech that the government has determined could cause a person to attack you. Calling someone the N-word is the easiest example.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Thinking a verbal insult justifies violence is pretty crazy.

 

[dsdmmat]

Not related to this case, but in general the "fighting words" doctrine is something i can get behind in limited circumstances. If a credible threat of harm is made in the moments before violence erupts im ok with using force.

For example, if someone says "as soon as you turn your back im gonna stab you" and you respond with overwhelming violence, but not deadly physical force, I think thats a case of self defense. If in that altercation the guy then pulls out a knife and tries to stab you. To stop him from stabbing you, if you have to end the threat by ending him then i would think that its justified.

Now, if that same scenario played out, but instead of the threat he made he insulted your heritage, your mother, etc... i dont believe violence would be justified as a response.

The two are not the same. Your example is a threat of bodily harm not fighting words. Fighting words can be a racial slur, calling your spouse a whore or something aimed at getting your blood pressure up so you start swinging. It is a type of taunting with the victim starting a physical confrontation as the desired effect.

One of my Soldiers smashed a beer bottle on another Soldier’s head after that Soldier walked up to him in a bar and told him his wife was a whore. In my opinion the Soldier got what he deserved. I spoke on the behalf of my Soldier at the Article 15 hearing, and told the commander that he was defending his wife’s honor and should receive an Army Commendation medal, adding my Soldier showed an extraordinary amount of restraint, if it had been a younger me, that Soldier would have been in a pine box. The Battalion Commander, did not give him a medal but did give my Soldier the lightest punishment he could do and still uphold his zero tolerance policy on alcohol related incidents.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

If I call someone a mean name, and they respond with violence, I believe I have every right to defend myself from that violence with deadly force.

 

[Rap]

The two are not the same. Your example is a threat of bodily harm not fighting words. Fighting words can be a racial slur, calling your spouse a whore or something aimed at getting your blood pressure up so you start swinging. It is a type of taunting with the victim starting a physical confrontation as the desired effect.

One of my Soldiers smashed a beer bottle on another Soldier’s head after that Soldier walked up to him in a bar and told him his wife was a whore. In my opinion the Soldier got what he deserved. I spoke on the behalf of my Soldier at the Article 15 hearing, and told the commander that he was defending his wife’s honor and should receive an Army Commendation medal, adding my Soldier showed an extraordinary amount of restraint, if it had been a younger me, that Soldier would have been in a pine box. The Battalion Commander, did not give him a medal but did give my Soldier the lightest punishment he could do and still uphold his zero tolerance policy on alcohol related incidents.

From what I understand, you're saying that you support the soldier who responded to the insult against his wife with violence, right?

 

[Rap]

Some commentary on the case from an attorney:

 

[Rap]

If I call someone a mean name, and they respond with violence, I believe I have every right to defend myself from that violence with deadly force.

It's a matter of proportionality, as always.

 

[dsdmmat]

From what I understand, you're saying that you support the soldier who responded to the insult against his wife with violence, right?

100%, it is a matter of polite society, consequences and taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Who knows, when people start getting punched in the mouth for flapping their lips instead of keeping it shut, society would be much better off. Wars have been started over insults.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

It's a matter of proportionality, as always.

Agreed.

A person shouldn't forfeit their right to self defense because they offended someone first.

It shouldn't even come up in an investigation or trial.

 

[DoD1776]

what i am confused about, from what I read he just finished up a court case, so if that was the case, how did he have a firearm outside of the court house, does the court house have somewhere for firearm storage?

 

[GOPerfect]

In his car?

 

[seezur]

He’s an asshole, full stop. He’s doing what he’s doing for “fame” and money.

That said, black people are America’s sacred cow. They can do no wrong. We have gone so far as to make sweeping policy changes, for example Glock bans due to switches, despite literally every documented shooting with said switches being done by blacks. The media and half the country ignore that almost all gun violence outside of suicide is caused by black people.

My point is, he will be prosecuted because he said the “bad” word and in America you can do just about anything but that. If this was two white guys, who knows. But a black person and a racist? They have to punish him whether it’s legally justified or not.

 

[Rap]

He’s an asshole, full stop. He’s doing what he’s doing for “fame” and money.

That said, black people are America’s sacred cow. They can do no wrong. We have gone so far as to make sweeping policy changes, for example Glock bans due to switches, despite literally every documented shooting with said switches being done by blacks. The media and half the country ignore that almost all gun violence outside of suicide is caused by black people.

My point is, he will be prosecuted because he said the “bad” word and in America you can do just about anything but that. If this was two white guys, who knows. But a black person and a racist? They have to punish him whether it’s legally justified or not.

He shot a man. The charge is attempted murder.

Keep the conversation focused.

 

[Rap]

Agreed.

A person shouldn't forfeit their right to self defense because they offended someone first.

It shouldn't even come up in an investigation or trial.

What shouldn't come up?