ChudTheBuilder, 1A, Stand Your Ground

[Criticalt]

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!

Just so we all agree, there is NEVER a case where you can reach for a firearm during a verbal argument, ever, no matter who started it...right?
Even if this Fox guy used the most disgusting, vile, racist, and "illegal" words, chud has no "right" to reach for a firearm.
The fighting words doctrine is only used by GOVERNMENT to determine culpability if a physical altercation happens.
The only punishment in the streets would be an arrest.
I know we are on the same page, I just like typing.

 

[Robin]

Free Derek Chauvin!
Robin

 

[Rap]

Free Derek Chauvin!
Robin

Keep the conversation focused.

 

[Robin]

Keep the conversation focused.

Free Derek Chavin.

Its' the best picture I could find.
Robin

 

[GOPerfect]

He shot a man. The charge is attempted murder.

Keep the conversation focused.

He shot a man because he was physically assaulted by that man

 

[Rap]

He shot a man because he was physically assaulted by that man

So he brought a gun to a fist fight that he provoked?

 

[GOPerfect]

So he brought a gun to a fist fight that he provoked?

He lawfully carried a gun on his person, he may or he may not have said a word or two that another man could not handle.
That pitiful man decided to attack. The gun carrying man was losing and feared for his wellbeing and used self defense against this brutal attack.

Rap, I will ask you a simple question, do you believe being called or hearing [N-word) gives a person the right to physically attack another person?

This is what this entire incident is about.

 

[Rap]

He lawfully carried a gun on his person, he may or he may not have said a word or two that another man could not handle.
That pitiful man decided to attack. The gun carrying man was losing and feared for his wellbeing and used self defense against this brutal attack.

Rap, I will ask you a simple question, do you believe being called or hearing Ni&&er gives a person the right to physically attack another person?

This is what this entire incident is about.

This is about "fighting words" and much more.
As I see it, the different decisions we are being forced to make are laid out in my earlier post. So this is not only about whether Chud running around calling people [N word] warrants physical response.
But to address your question directly: I think that the decision to respond with force to this verbal provocation is battery, and should be treated as such under the law. I also think that the fighting words doctrine is sensible and rooted in sound logic. So the person instigating the fight is also on the hook legally.

 

[GOPerfect]

This is about "fighting words" and much more.
As I see it, the different decisions we are being forced to make are laid out in my earlier post. So this is not only about whether Chud running around calling people n*gger warrants physical response.
But to address your question directly: I think that the decision to respond with force to this verbal provocation is battery, and should be treated as such under the law. I also think that the fighting words doctrine is sensible and rooted in sound logic. So the person instigating the fight is also on the hook legally.

I have been doing more digging into this Fighting words thing because of this case.

IMO, this word, this single word does not fit the legal determination of fighting words.

We need to back to the first bad court ruling of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

That was in fact a horrible ruling that set the stage to chip away at the First Amendment.

Cohen v. California (1971) helped to repair the damage of the original ruling.


For speech to be legally classified as fighting words, it must meet specific, narrow criteria:

• Targeted and Face-to-Face: The insult must be directed at a specific, individual person in a face-to-face confrontation. General profanity, offensive slogans, or addressing a large crowd does not typically qualify.
• Inherently Provocative: The words must be the type that a reasonable person in that specific situation would find so offensive they are immediately prompted to retaliate with physical violence.
• Immediate Threat: The resulting breach of the peace must be imminent, rather than a threat of future or delayed violence.

I think one of the best takeaways from this is what a reasonable person would do.
I have been called many names, terms and slurs in my life. I have been told by crims that they were going to find out where I lived and they were going to rape my wife and kill my children. I am a reasonable person and figured none of that would happen.
When I was on the job, I was called the most vile and horrible names. For those names called, I never pounced into violence.
If you were to ask a wide variety of people, from all walks of life, if a this single word was said, I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people would say it is not reasonable to violently attack the person that said this word.

Because the First Amendment strongly protects free expression, recent rulings emphasize that the government cannot easily ban speech simply because it is offensive, vulgar, or causes hurt feelings. To prevent the government from censoring unpopular opinions or viewpoints, the legal bar for what constitutes "fighting words" remains exceptionally high, meaning convictions under this exception are very rare.

 

[Rap]

Some questions for the forum:

• Considering the political environment, what are your thoughts on Chud with regard to 2A and responsible gun ownership?
• Thought experiment: suppose you encounter a man walking down your street. You are outside in your front yard, with your family. The man stands in the street in front of your house yelling at you about how he enjoyed fucking your wife. He dares you to do something about it. He's calling you a bitch for not stepping up and fighting him. Next, he starts talking directly to your wife and teenage daughter, telling them what he has in store for them the next time. Should you just eat this abuse, because of the man's 1A right to freedom of expression?

 

[GOPerfect]

Some questions for the forum:

• Considering the political environment, what are your thoughts on Chud with regard to 2A and responsible gun ownership?
• Thought experiment: suppose you encounter a man walking down your street. You are outside in your front yard, with your family. The man stands in the street in front of your house yelling at you about how he enjoyed fucking your wife. He dares you to do something about it. He's calling you a bitch for not stepping up and fighting him. Next, he starts talking directly to your wife, telling her what he has in store for her the next time. Should you just eat this abuse, because of the man's 1A right to freedom of expression?

I will answer both of these questions after others chime in.

What I have to say, may shock you.

 

[Rap]

I will answer both of these questions after others chime in.

What I have to say, may shock you.

I don't expect I'll be surprised.
I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

 

[GOPerfect]

I don't expect I'll be surprised.
I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.

Okay, I will not wait for others to chime in.

Chud... he is a complete douche bag. He is vermin. He would never be in my circle. He has every Right to stay armed and use his tools to protect himself. I stated earlier, if I were on the jury, he would not be found guilty of the charges.

As for your scenario....

I live in very a very rural area of the country. The road is 300 feet from my house. If my wife and I were outside and a man was yelling these things at me and my wife, I would instruct her to go into the home and call the local Sheriff's department.

I would find out from the Sheriff's department who this person is. I would find out where he lives. When all is said and done, in the end, he would be very sorry that he spoke the way he did. I would not go to jail over these words spoken, I am in fact a better man than that.


The guy that attacked Chud, I do not find his actions to be unreasonable. I am not naive, I fully understand what the word N...er represents to many, if not most black folk. Is not just a word, never has been. It is used because it is one of the best ways to get fully under the skin of black folk. This is why it is used. It has power. The power would no longer be there if the people did not allow the power.

The attacker, he stood on business and he paid the price for his actions. He has his honor still intact though

 

[Rap]

Okay, I will not wait for others to chime in.

Chud... he is a complete douche bag. He is vermin. He would never be in my circle. He has every Right to stay armed and use his tools to protect himself. I stated earlier, if I were on the jury, he would not be found guilty of the charges.

As for your scenario....

I live in very a very rural area of the country. The road is 300 feet from my house. If my wife and I were outside and a man was yelling these things at me and my wife, I would instruct her to go into the home and call the local Sheriff's department.

I would find out from the Sheriff's department who this person is. I would find out where he lives. When all is said and done, in the end, he would be very sorry that he spoke the way he did. I would not go to jail over these words spoken, I am in fact a better man than that.


The guy that attacked Chud, I do not find his actions to be unreasonable. I am not naive, I fully understand what the word N...er represents to many, if not most black folk. Is not just a word, never has been. It is used because it is one of the best ways to get fully under the skin of black folk. This is why it is used. It has power. The power would no longer be there if the people did not allow the power.

The attacker, he stood on business and he paid the price for his actions. He has his honor still intact though

I appreciate your candor.

You wrote "I would find out from the Sheriff's department who this person is. I would find out where he lives. When all is said and done, in the end, he would be very sorry that he spoke the way he did. I would not go to jail over these words spoken, I am in fact a better man than that."

So basically, you would leverage your law enforcement connection to get revenge. You would allow him to force you and your family inside the house. Am I to assume that if he returned the next day that you would again retreat with your family?

Since we're talking about laws/societal rules, you have to understand that most people aren't cozy with law enforcement like you are, so the option to go the back channel/vigilante route is off the table for them. What does the average person do?

I agree that Joshua Fox chose to respond directly and violently, and he should face the music for doing so.

What I don't understand is your rationale for exonerating Chud. What is the legal basis for your judgment of his actions?

 

[GOPerfect]

I appreciate your candor.

You wrote "I would find out from the Sheriff's department who this person is. I would find out where he lives. When all is said and done, in the end, he would be very sorry that he spoke the way he did. I would not go to jail over these words spoken, I am in fact a better man than that."

So basically, you would leverage your law enforcement connection to get revenge. You would allow him to force you and your family inside the house. Am I to assume that if he returned the next day that you would again retreat with your family?

Since we're talking about laws/societal rules, you have to understand that most people aren't cozy with law enforcement like you are, so the option to go the back channel/vigilante route is off the table for them. What does the average person do?

I agree that Joshua Fox chose to respond directly and violently, and he should face the music for doing so.

What I don't understand is your rationale for exonerating Chud. What is the legal basis for your judgment of his actions?

Your last question...

I am, as an American, Constitution first. I fully believe in our Rights. As unfettered as possible. Chud has this Right to say what he wants, as it should be. Others will in fact have their feelings hurt, if they cannot get past their feelings, or they cannot control them; that is on them.

Going through life, I have gained very, very thick skin. I am offended by absolutely nothing at all. I have control of my inner pride. In the end, when the dust settles, I will always be victorious.

I am not at all trying to sound all tough, I know what I can do and what I am capable of.

I would never lose in the end, by allowing my emotions to control me to the point I am jailed or worse.

 

[seezur]

He shot a man. The charge is attempted murder.

Keep the conversation focused.

The conversation is focused and my point stands. Whether or not what he did was legal, he will be charged because blacks are America’s sacred cow. That’s simple.

Also, people are pointing to his social media post where he stated (apparently, tbh I’m not very invested in this) that eventually he would shoot a black person in self defense or something to that effect. They are using it as proof that he intended to do this. But again, black people aren’t exactly known for keeping their tempers, especially when the “word” is uttered. Whenever you see a video of a black person assaulting someone there is always one comment that says “what’s the context”, insinuating that they were called the no no word. It’s frequently used in culture and even in the media as a justification for violence.

Point is, this was always going to happen and I can’t see where he gets off based on the current social and political climate in America, regardless of whether he was legally right or wrong.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

What shouldn't come up?

If feelings being hurt were the reason for the aggression that required the use of deadly force.

 

[Rap]

If feelings being hurt were the reason for the aggression that required the use of deadly force.

The upcoming trial will address necessary force. I've made my position clear.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

The upcoming trial will address necessary force. I've made my position clear.

As have I

 

[Rap]

The conversation is focused and my point stands. Whether or not what he did was legal, he will be charged because blacks are America’s sacred cow. That’s simple.

Also, people are pointing to his social media post where he stated (apparently, tbh I’m not very invested in this) that eventually he would shoot a black person in self defense or something to that effect. They are using it as proof that he intended to do this. But again, black people aren’t exactly known for keeping their tempers, especially when the “word” is uttered. Whenever you see a video of a black person assaulting someone there is always one comment that says “what’s the context”, insinuating that they were called the no no word. It’s frequently used in culture and even in the media as a justification for violence.

Point is, this was always going to happen and I can’t see where he gets off based on the current social and political climate in America, regardless of whether he was legally right or wrong.

The irony is how much your posts scream that you are in your feelings.
I don't have much else for you besides that observation. Improve the signal to noise ratio and we can talk.

 

[seezur]

The irony is how much your posts scream that you are in your feelings.
I don't have much else for you besides that observation. Improve the signal to noise ratio and we can talk.

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. You’re becoming emotional about this. I’m stating a fact about what happened and what will happen in regards to this case. I don’t particularly care about “Chud” or the guy who got shot. They are both assholes.

And whether or not you are aware of racial politics in America is irrelevant as well. I find that hard to believe though, as we come up on Floyd’s sixth “anniversary” where national media covered multiple cities burned and looted primarily by blacks all in the name of a career criminal who OD’d on drugs. So while you think it’s not on topic, it is. It’s a part of a bigger, overarching trend in the US, got it?

I guess as a final point, I don’t believe in “fighting words”. I think you should be able to control yourself, especially if you’re going to carry a gun. I’ve had plenty of people say things to incite me and I’ve never attacked them. Now, if they touch me, it’s a different story. Everyone knows this guy is an asshole. Why engage with him? Is it a win for the guy who got shot because he became too emotional? Idk seems pretty stupid. Again, none of this matters because he’s going to be crucified whether what he did was legal or not (see the above, racial politics in America).

 

[spat]

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.

That doctrine, like "disorderly conduct" and "obscenity" is ridiculously vague and should be struck down for that reason.

The only thing that should be recognized as "fighting words" should be actual threats of imminent violence. I.e. already illegal conduct even if they don't precipitate a fight.

The law should be crystal clear and unambiguous. Anything that requires people to interpret what a mythical "reasonable person" would do, or think, is utter bullshit.

 

[Rap]

That doctrine, like "disorderly conduct" and "obscenity" is ridiculously vague and should be struck down for that reason.

The only thing that should be recognized as "fighting words" should be actual threats of imminent violence. I.e. already illegal conduct even if they don't precipitate a fight.

The law should be crystal clear and unambiguous. Anything that requires people to interpret what a mythical "reasonable person" would do, or think, is utter bullshit.

I refer you to the reasonable person standard, which is essential to legal judgment in the United States. You should look it up.

 

[Celt]

[*]Thought experiment: suppose you encounter a man walking down your street. You are outside in your front yard, with your family. The man stands in the street in front of your house yelling at you about how he enjoyed fucking your wife. He dares you to do something about it. He's calling you a bitch for not stepping up and fighting him. Next, he starts talking directly to your wife and teenage daughter, telling them what he has in store for them the next time. Should you just eat this abuse, because of the man's 1A right to freedom of expression?
[/LIST]

Real answer? Hold my beer.


Answer for the gestapo reading the forum? i would take my family in the house and call the police.

 

[Rap]

Real answer? Hold my beer.


Answer for the gestapo reading the forum? i would take my family in the house and call the police.

Understood. Whether it's written explicitly or not, these hypotheticals serve the point of arriving at a shared understanding. You know what your answer is.

 

[GOPerfect]

Real answer? Hold my beer.


Answer for the gestapo reading the forum? i would take my family in the house and call the police.

I know enough to know the answer is quite deeper.

 

[GOPerfect]

Just saying.....

 

[Rap]

Some questions-
* do you consider Chud's race-baiting to constitute harassment?
* if so, should he legally have the ability to monetize such behavior, as he was doing?

 

[spat]

I refer you to the reasonable person standard, which is essential to legal judgment in the United States. You should look it up.

I am familiar with it.

I stand by my statement that it is utter bullshit, every single place it pops up anywhere in our legal code.

Just because it is common, doesn't make it reasonable to do (see what I did there).

The law should not depend on completely subjective opinions of hypothetical fictional "reasonable people".

Laws should be based on 100% objective criteria. Anything less is absolutely arbitrary and unconstitutional.

 

[GOPerfect]

Some questions-
* do you consider Chud's race-baiting to constitute harassment?
* if so, should he legally have the ability to monetize such behavior, as he was doing?

I do not.

He should be able to make any money he can from being an asshole.