This video analyzes two similar cases involving physical altercations that resulted in opposite public reactions and legal outcomes, demonstrating how race appears to influence who receives sympathy, fundraising support, and favorable treatment in the justice system. The host compares Karmelo Anthony (a Black man who stabbed someone during an altercation) with Chud the Builder (a white man who shot someone after a confrontation), noting that Anthony's bond was reduced to $250,000 while Chud's remained at $1 million. The discussion explores whether this disparity reflects systemic racism or different circumstances, examining factors like self-defense claims, proportionality of force, and community perception. The video questions whether similar situations are treated fairly or if two-tiered justice based on skin color has become the norm in America.
"Karmelo Anthony vs Chud the Builder: Same Situation, Different Skin = Different Justice?Added:
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
It's the truth right here. Say you like tails.
>> We don't talk dreams, we talk facts.
>> Sell you like portrait. Yeah, we got the facts. Sit back, relax your ass, get taxed. Money on the line. Super cash.
We expose the lies and we bring it all back. Sell you like. Yeah, we run the block. Truth hit hard like a 30 round block. Facts in the booth. No cap, just stacks. Sit back, relax or your ass get tax. Yeah. Lights on, camera roll, it's the real life show. Talk slick on the net in the flesh. They froze. Cash at blinking. Super chats on fire. They play for the game cuz the truth is spot. From the streets to the streams, I was raised on grit. Now the podcast popping, they can't fake this [ __ ] Every word that I drop, man, it move like weight. They tune in for the ism. Don't matter the state you like. Yeah, we got the facts.
Sit back, relax, so your ass get tax.
Money on the line with the check cash.
We expose the lies and we bring it all back. It's no wake up call. Ain't no capping. We bring truth to the front.
Let it blasting. Yeah, I'm the host with the hustle. Put the city on my back.
When you step in this arena, you get checked with facts. Survival of the real and the fake don't last. Even grinding every night. Steady counting is cash.
Sell your light on the screen. Yeah, the game too raw. If you run for the crowd, we exposing the flaw.
You know what it is, man.
Somebody got to keep it real.
Sell you like facts over feelings.
Relax or get taxed. I'm the truth on the mic. I don't I don't fold. Every lie going to crumble. Every secret exposed.
Super chat in the chat. Cash apps on deck. They invest in the vision cuz they know what's next. There's more than a show. It's a code. It's a vow. We the ones telling truth. You can't silence it now. Sell you like podcast. Put respect on the name. We done built this off the hustle and pain. You like poor? Yeah, we got the facts. Sit back, relax or your ass get taxed. Money on the line. Super chance cashing. We expose the lies and we bring it all back. Tell you like punch. Yeah, we run a block. Truth hit hard like a 30 round Glock. Facts in a booth. No cap, just stacks. Sit back, relax, so your ass get Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat.
Heat.
Heat.
What up though? What up though? What up though? What up though? Put a one in the chat if you can hear me. Put a one in the chat if you can hear me. Greatly appreciate everybody stopping by, tuning in to the show. As y'all flood on in here, make sure y'all hit the like button, share it out, support, all of that good stuff. If you haven't followed, subscribed, and all this that and the other good stuff. Y already know how it go. When it comes to social media, you already know what to do and how it goes. But I got to go ahead and address my homie Big Bad Bull is in the building. Big Bad Bull says, "Where the [ __ ] did the super chat go?" Uh, I've been demonetized, and that's fine. It is what it is. Um, per YouTube's standards and guidelines and all this that and the other, my channel along with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other channels have been deemed um unmonetizable at the moment. So, it is what it is. So, if you want to support the show, you know, you can go ahead and as always, you can support the show by hitting the cash app. It is dollar sign s e l l y o u l i g ht. But yes, unfortunately we had we was caught up and that little demonetization string that YouTube had going on. It is what it is. I ain't worried about it. It's all right. I'm not losing no sleep about it.
It it is what it is. But that's where the super chat button went. So that's to answer your question, big bad boy. Now, let me go ahead and give a warm welcome to everybody in the building. We got Almanage in the building. What is going on, Almanage? She says, "Oh, snap.
Dinner tube at its finest." Oh, yes indeed. I got a hell of a show planned for you today. Michael Dia is in the building. What's going on, my brother?
Hope all is well. Reass is in the building. What's going on? Rooster.
Rooster's here. What's going on, Rooster? Chase is in the building.
What's going on, No Chaser? Hope all is well with your big dog. Who else we got up in here? Uh, Kills. Kills is what's in the building.
What's going on? What's going on? And then Rooster says, "Wows shaking my head. Colored people did it." Yeah, I mean it is what it is. But let me go ahead and move on because I don't want to, you know, uh, bore anybody, you know. So, we got a few things that we got to talk about today. The first thing we got to talk about today is this Chad the Bu Chad the Builder and the Carmelo Anthony situation. What's going on, Brilland? Hey, how you doing? What's going on? My brother Christopher Jay is in the building. What's happening Christopher Jay? Hope all is well with your big dog. Now, with that being said, we got to talk about this Chud the Builder and Carmelo Anony's. Uh, the contrasting things between these two situations. A lot of people say that it's the same situation, different skin.
Should it equal different justice?
What's going on Pete Branch? Hey, how you doing? Coconuts, what's going on, Dims? Hope all is well with you, big dog. So, this this is the thing.
A lot of people are drawing conclusions right now and they're putting a lot of their own anecdotal experiences and their own wants and what have nots behind these two different cases. Ple so in the midst of these two cases that's going on because we all know that the Carmelo Anthony case starts uh I think it's June, right? Uh actually we got about eight days eight nine days before that thing gets started. Once that case gets started, a lot of people are going to be streaming. I myself, you know, I'm going to be interested in what happens in that case. But recently, since this Chud the Builder situation has happened, a lot of people have been weighing in on it. At first, it was racist that uh Carmelo Anony's bond was set so high, so it got reduced.
Then it turns around now Chad the Builder's bond, his bond is a million dollars, and people are saying it's justified.
I'm trying to understand the distinction between the two. If Chud the Builder's case is being argued by a lot of people and a lot of supporters saying that it's self-defense for Chud the Builder, wouldn't it be self-defense for Carmelo Anthony? If it's self-defense for Carlo Melo Anthony and he actually took someone's life, why would it not then be self-defense for Chad the Builder and all he did was shoot someone? The contrasting thing between these two different things is this. As we all know, it's always based on what?
Everybody should know the answer to this, but it's always based on what?
Uh, just messaged me. I still had to remove this. Okay, cool. Bet, bet, bet.
Appreciate you. So, it's always based on what? We all know the answer. It's always based on skin color. That's that's the that's the real that's the real thing. the diet tribe that the difference between these two different sex is always based on skin color and community opinion when it comes down to the same incident opposite reactions. Is there a racial double standard? Now, we definitely have a few things that we have to get through because I do want to review some video uh a little bit of uh a back and forth between um DJ Academics and Myron Gangs.
They just recently had a debate about this and I want to get y'all reactions, y'all opinions about this. Uh, of course I do have the link pinned. The link is pinned for anyone to join up. Uh, we're going to be, you know, having guests come up to give their opinion and really just drive the conversation forward. But again, as always, I want to point I want to really mine out the distinction driving difference between these two.
So, we're going to try something a little bit different today. And I hope this works on the vertical stream. So, I'm going to switch cameras for just a second. And it did not work on the vertical stream the way that I wanted it to. So, I'm going to go with my original plan and just stay here. All right. So, I'm going to add this to the stage.
That way, y'all can be able to see. I wonder can it will it still work that way if I do it if I do it like this? No, it won't work that way. Y'all won't be able to hear the audio on the vertical stage.
Yeah, y'all won't be able to hear the audio on the vertical stage. It's going to look it's going to look janky on a vertical stage. I don't want uh you said before you go too far, can you check your check your cash up? Yeah, I got you, big homie. Let me check my cash up. Uh yes, sir. This is me. Yes, sir. This is me. Absolutely. And I appreciate you for the uh the cash app, big homie. Thank you very much. So, I don't want to put on a bad uh presentation for y'all for the show. So, I am going to go ahead and single this out and I'll just put myself in the bottom corner and I'll go back to my original camera which is right here.
All right, cool. So, appreciate you big bad boy. Thank you very much. Um, Unregulated Media TV says, "How what's going on, big homie?" All right, so as I said, we're going to listen to a little bit of this debate. The panel link ESPN.
If you want to join the panel, please make sure you have your camera on, but we're going to listen in for a little bit and then we're going to have a little bit of discussion. Not much. So, yeah. No.
>> Oh, and also put a one in the chat if y'all can hear this audio.
>> Uh, they were trying to have me react to a video. I think it was you and Sneo.
You guys were uh reacting to the conversation we have with Ch the Builder.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Or about Ch the Builder. I think the conversation went a little bit elsewhere, but um it was a for me I I thought it was a you know, I'm usually the person that is never, you know, I'm not like Tariq Nasheed where it's like, yo. And and I think that's another place where Nico did a misstep because I think he approached it like I was going to come with this victimhood thing. And I was like, "No, I'm I'm not defending none of those points. What I'm defending here is that we have a certain individual, right? Whether you you I don't know how you kind of grade racial relations within, you know, among races at this point. I think they're better than a couple years ago when people were rioted." And this guy is going out of his way and he's using some >> Hey, shout out to my man's Big Bad Boy.
He said, "Okay, just sent you another.
Stay motivated, good brother." You know what? I appreciate you and much love to you. Let me go ahead and celebrate Big Bad Boy for being a sponsor of the [ __ ] show. Thank you very much.
Let me go ahead and celebrate my mans with the yam.
>> Here's Charlie Wilson.
>> Cuz I got this.
Can I get your hands?
Sweet.
Show me the way cuz I got bills to pay.
>> Thank you very much, Big Bad Boy, for being a sponsor of the show. Pretty much. And thank you very much, big homie. Let's continue.
>> Thing that would seem legal, but but it's not legal. You're like, he's saying it's my freedom of speech to be using slurs to offend you, you off, get you to a point that you could possibly so I'm going to provoke you to you could possibly attack me. And if you do it, man, I got this gun on my hip. I'm going to put your brains on the pavement. And um so Sneo hopped on and his opinion was this. And I guess you could chime in after that. Yeah.
>> But but that this was the brunt of the debate. He said, "Well, here's the thing." He's like, "I don't necessarily agree with what Ch the Builder does.
However, I do think that, you know, the black community or any community that allows a word to have like that much power, they should almost nerf the word, just like, you know, repurpose it or when people use it, just don't take offense. And my point to him was that's just not like if if we go back in the history of of all ethmology, like that's just not how words are used and repurposed and and um put into place. If I say certain words to you about whether your religion or your mom or anything that's sacred to you when and also the thing with when disrespect is intended even if it wasn't that you would have found the to put the disrespect in. So it's hard to avoid when someone is seeking disrespect if you know I I said earlier and I'll throw it to you after this. I said if you know cuz I had seen a small part of like you know I guess you probably you went on a a tie raid and you said well you know if you know there is a little bit of fatigue and I said here's the thing when I look at like white people I do think white people are kind of tired of not being able to be themselves not not being able to like be proud of being white because historically in the last 10 years or so it has been where it's like hey if you're if you're proud to be white you're proud to be right and it's almost been like synonymous and I do I do see like the tides changed on that I don't have a problem necessarily with that. I have a problem when when when they're trying to um they're trying to combine those movements with a guy who is not like if he was walking up to white people be like, "Yo, we're [ __ ] white.
We're like we're proud. We're we're Americans." And if that was his thing and he's going viral, I don't think he gets his backlash is that he makes his movement diametrically opposed to people trying to put them down and also trying to assert why he's proud to be who he is. And that's why I thought it was a bad representative of any argument that anyone could have trying to support him and the sneak argument happened. What say you?
>> Yeah. So, I think it's important.
>> So, I just want to go ahead um I am going to listen to Myron's response. Let me turn my screen here a little bit. I can't see. All right. Do All right. So, I do want to go ahead and just some um give a little bit of a commentary to what ACT just said. I think that's what's a lot of men been going on. Hey, man. What's going on my brother? What's happening? Bust says, "Act is still terrible." So, regardless of the the the the person, I always like to react to what's being said. So, the thing is, I think at really pointed out something that was um that has been going on these last I would say five, maybe 10 years, maybe even 15, 20 for some people. I'm not that old. I was born 89. So, the thing is a lot of people have been talking about um black fatigue. If y'all are familiar with this whole this statement about black fatigue, please put a one in the chat. Right. And what he's saying is that a lot of white people uh even though they're being painted or labeled uh synonymously with racism, a lot of black people have been painted and synonymously labeled with racism as well. The thing is is just that a lot of people are just starting to be more of themselves. And that does not necessarily mean that they are naturally racist or just because they're white or because they're black. But when we talking about the court of public opinion, then people are going to draw their distinction to how it is that they want. The sad part is is that when it comes to how it is that you speak or how it is that you project or or project or present a message, people are going to say, "Well, you're white, you're racist.
You're a black, you're racist. If you don't like lightkinn, you're lace racist. If you don't like dark skin, you're racist." when it comes to this Chud Chud the builder in hell even with the Carmelo Anthony situation a lot of people rallied behind Carmelo Anthony because I'm just going by what it is that I seen within the scene. Okay, a lot of people rallied behind Carmelo Anthony. Black people rallied behind Carmelo Anthony because he's a young black man and in this particular situation he was involved in an incident with a white with a young white man. And what happened was that the young white man ended up losing his life. And a lot of people were saying, "Well, it's self-defense and oh, he should be able to use GoFundMe and give sin go and all this." A lot of people were saying, "Well, that's racist that he shouldn't be treated like that and oh, his bond was set at a million. It's wrong."
Right. K said, "I can admit that I'm kind of prejudice. It has nothing to do with color." Appreciate that. Brandon says, "I get called that every time I do a live stream. It happens. And even in this situation with Chud the Builder, a lot of the people are saying that this was driven purely by racism. Now, does that mean that just because of the content that Chud the Builder has produced, does that mean he's a racist?
No. But that's but that's also up for public opinion, right? So, let's go ahead and move on to let's hear what Myron says, >> right? To kind of understand that like a lot of the clips that go viral from, right? Those clips went viral because of the altercation, but obviously nothing gets clipped when he's having conversations with people when they're chopping it up about stuff more positive. Only the negative stuff goes viral. Me and you both know this being in this industry that, you know, the good stuff is never clipped, right? When you say things that are positive where you help people out, they never clip that. They only clip when you're, you know, crashing out on Meek Mill or saying, "Oh, you know, you Rory or some other." So, I think that's important because us as content creators, we understand that we always get clipped sometimes at the craziest moments that don't necessarily reflect us. Now, with that said, let me be clear about this. I don't agree walking around and antagonizing people. I think that's probably not a good idea. And as and I actually messaged him about this as well. Now, with that said, when I talk about and I talk about what just went down with this shooting, I'm speaking from the scope that based on the information that I saw and what people told me that were actually watching the live stream. Uh, did you hear like what what was uh like the narrative? What was been said?
>> Please. Well, I've I've heard one narrative, but but I want to hear what you >> So, basically, from people that watch the stream, it goes down like this. He's walking around and a group of people, I'm assum presumably with whoever this guy was there, like pointed at him and started laughing. So, he walks over. He says, "Hey, you guys like my suit? How's your day?" Blah blah blah. One of the guys outside the courthouse, right?
Because >> it's like outside the courthouse. It's in this vicinity. Yeah. One of the guys says, "Hey, get out of here." And he says, "Well, I have the right to be wherever I want to be and walk where I want." Right. He starts walking away.
Then he walks about 50 to 100 feet or yards away, whatever it may be. And the dude walks up to him and says, "I got PTSD. You better not say that I'm going to chimp out or call me that blah blah blah." Right? So he says, "Or what?
You're going to chimp out?" And the guy punches him. Right? He punches him, the camera falls, there's some, you hear some tustling for a few seconds and then you hear shots fired. Right? Now, when it comes to those facts and circumstances, right? That is self-defense. People don't have to like, they don't have to agree with the content he makes. they don't have to, you know, be a fan or not, but I do think that uh with what went down and the facts that we know right now, if they are that in that manner, in that order, more than likely he's going to he's going to have a pretty strong self-defense case. But thing that people need to understand, and me and you both know this, we talked about this last time we spoke. Whenever you have a high-profile case like this, like where someone that's high-profile was involved in an altercation or something happened, a lot of times the state is just going to make an arrest to absolve themselves from responsibility so that they can kind of be like, "Oh, we're going to pass the buck to grand jury." Like, this literally happened to you. So, so you know what I mean? You were innocent. We all know you were or lie all the time, but they still had to try to, oh, let's push it to the grand jury because, you know, we don't want to deal with any type of fallout. So, when it comes to the situation, the guy close the distance on him and typically whoever the closest the distance is the aggressor and Tennessee has a stand on your ground statue. So, once he punched him, it's all, you know, games on now at this point, right?
>> So, so, >> all right. So before uh act respond uh Curtis Blaldwin says [ __ ] 12 cameras say otherwise. I haven't seen the video.
I haven't seen the stream. Um I've only seen the fallout. So I wouldn't be able to comment on whether or not it was 12 cameras there or not. And yes uh ladies and gentlemen, likes are free. Please make sure you double tap your screen. So just responding to what Myron said really quick. Um, typically the person who does the approaching is the aggressor. I'm not saying that Chud is uh within his uh I'm sorry, I'm not saying that Chud does uh is not going going to like use the the whole this a self-defense argument, but when it comes down to whether or not if the person who approached on him is the aggressor, that's up for Jury to decide. Uh we wasn't there. We Some of y'all seen the video. We I didn't. But it is what it is. But in this Carmelo Anthony situation, the same thing is applying there. A lot of people are drawing the distinction that just because it was Austin Metave and his brother that they're they're the ones that's they was jumping him and he's in he's in a right to defend himself. Again, a lot of court of public opinion was being drawn down on the Carmelo Anthony case and the same thing is happening here. The problem is though is just that in the Carmel Anthony case, he's black and Austin Metaf is white and in this Chud the Builder uh case, he's white and the person that he end up shooting was black. And that's what's really drawing the distinction. Winters Rising said this is going to this is just going to be used to cause more division between races. That's all the governments wants and they will push it. That's a very good that's a very good uh point to make because now the question is are these cases getting all of this highlight because of the politics. What's going on Genesis? Hey sister, what's going on? If you think that these cases are getting all of this attention because of politics, especially because of racial politics, make sure you put them one in the chat. Let's go. I I'm with you on most of this. And you know, so the narrative I heard it omits the part that he basically just says what's up and walks away. Then the other guy approaches, right? So in in in the narrative I heard, he approached a guy.
He's trying to have a conversation. The guy warns him. There is no walking away.
So so so it appears that walks up and he the guy warns him he have PTSD.
Continues in in their rhetoric back and forth. He then says a thing, a punch happens. But I I'll dismiss what I've heard and go with what you've heard.
Yeah. Just to continue the conversation >> because the people the people I spoke to watched the stream. Like I asked a couple of people that watched the stream and that's what they said. So there >> is there anybody in the chat that watched the stream? I just want to know is there anybody in the chat that watch the stream?
>> Short conversation. There's a short conversation. The guy tells him get out of here. He says I could walk where I want and be where I want. It's a free country. Something along those lines. He walks away. Then the guy closed the distance on him and makes the remarks about you better not say that around me or you know say that now got PTSD. And then he says oh are you are are you going to out? And that's when he punched them and then the obviously the fight begins. And this is where Okay, so just addressing that. All right. If what you're saying is right, and I have really no reason to believe that it's just like a complete lie. So I'm going to go with it. So that happened. Well, self-defense is not utilizing deadly force, right? Like I think deadly force like is defined by all 50 states, but even federally is like >> self-defense can rise up.
>> Yeah. It has to reach. So So and and this is the important distinction. I think a lot of people who liked or maybe supported in theory what he was doing cuz he kept saying things like hey this is first this is my first amendment right free speech. A lot of people didn't correct him in saying that hey listen brother you better go get a black belt or learn to squabble up because what happens is if someone spits on you can't shoot them.
>> Sure.
>> If someone if someone knocks your hat off you can't execute them.
>> Sure. What? So, even if I'm going with what you you said, yes, I believe he was defending himself, but when you defend yourself, that's you fighting back. So, it wouldn't be an assault charge if uh what academics is talking about here is proportionality for a lot of people who don't really understand. Was was the level of threat was the u was the the potential threat that was coming to you, was there a level of proportionality which now can result in you having to use deadly force? Right. I think this is one of the things that me and a lot of other people really got into a very big argument. As a matter of fact, I had to take that stream down because a lot of people uh really didn't like my stance and position on the Carmelo Anthony case. So, they was reporting my channel.
So, unfortunately, I had to take that live stream down. But, I was always asking the question about proportionality. in the Carmelo Anthony case, was it was it uh uh within the the the gauge or the scope of proportionality for him to use a knife just because a person who was about the same size as Bill, maybe a little bit even bigger, was they was in a physical altercation and he end up using a knife.
In this particular situation, uh this this this person who end up getting shot by Chud the Builder, he says, "Hey, don't use that language. That gives me PTSD or I got PTSD." and Chid say, "Well, are you going to punch out?" And the guy swings on him proportionalitywise, is it is it within the law for him to shoot someone just because they punched him? And now you in the court of public opinion, people saying, "Oh, well, he's a white guy. He's black. We've done with years of systemic racism, so he was in the right to punch him." Well, now I ask this question because they said that Chud the Builder was saying that this is first amendment speech. is racism or derogative language. Is it still a part of the First Amendment? That's the question for y'all in the chat. Let's continue.
>> He had punched the guy back in the mouth or even beat the [ __ ] out of him. But when you grab a gun and then you and that was, by the way, it's been in it's in his intent. He said it multiple times. Hey, I'm leaving a chimp's brain on the pavement. He's not saying that I hope no one threatens my life. He says these altercations where at times people are not even saying I'm going to kill you. There's nothing that establishes and you know you're a former law enforcement agent so you know better than me. There's nothing that he could you know articulate that says hey I am in fear of my life. Someone punching you in the mouth is not in fear of your life is he didn't say I heard that audio where you was telling the cop. He never said oh the guy was trying to grab my gun. He didn't say hey I'm about to shoot you with my gun. Basically trust me I know you walk around with a gun. I walk around with a gun. There's a lot of Americans that walk around using a and establishing their second amendment right, the right to bear arms, whether it's concealed or not. Usually, everybody's in the know of saying or understanding that it's not the first thing you use towards any type of violent or threatening altercation. If someone says, "I'm going to slap you," you can't shoot them and get away with it. If someone like bumps hard into you and you feel that was, you know, like a act of aggression, you can't execute them. So someone punching this guy in the face, I think he had a severe misunderstanding for a while thinking that if you touch him, he was well within his right to shoot you. And you tell me if you believe that's legal. So I'm not saying I'm saying he's defended himself. I'm saying he's not right to defend himself with a gun.
>> I'm going to be honest. A is asking the right questions. And you know what? I got to give DJ Academics a little bit of credit here. He's asking the right questions. No one's saying that you can't defend yourself, but can you defend yourself with deadly force just because someone touches you? Really quick, uh Winters Riser says, "Do you believe a defense lawyer and a prosecutor hate each other when they're in the court?" Uh when they're not in court. It's all for sure. Absolutely.
King Russell says, "Once you put a person in char."
Oh, by the way, since I'm demonetized, y'all don't have to cure up y'all language. Y'all can say whatever y'all want to say. even when I bring you bring y'all up on the panel. Just certain things just stay away from uh really quick. And Brandon, my man's Brandon, he says, "In Tennessee, you must face an immediate highle threat before you can use deadly force."
Brandin says, "Words should never lead to violence. The person who escalated to violence is the aggressor." Brandon says, "The law specifies that the threat must be real or honestly believe to be real at the time, and you cannot simply use deadly force to protect property or respond to minor physical altercations."
All right, let's continue.
>> So, you're trying to make the argument that the proportionality was off, right?
>> Yes. Because it usually most laws say there has to be proportional force.
Yeah, fair. Okay. In terms of >> Let's Let's switch tread out. Let's say it's a 5'2 girl. Same exact fact pattern. Can she shoot him >> after one punch? I would say no. I I mean it would be heavily debated though I with the jury I can imagine.
>> Okay. Heavy.
>> It all it all depends on now what Myron just did there. He he changed out Chud the Builder to a 5'2 girl.
Proportionalitywise.
I'm 5'11. I weigh about 270. If a girl is 5'2 and I swing on her, I'mma ask y'all in the chat. I'mma ask y'all. And I do not believe in hitting women, but I'mma ask y'all in the chat. I'm 5'11 270. A girl is 5 foot2 and she weighs about 160 pounds. Let's say 160 pounds.
If I swing on her proportionately, if you was a part of the jury, would you say that she had the right to use deadly first? That's my question to y'all. In this case, I don't know how tall or how big Chad the Builder is. I don't know how tall or how big the other guy is, but they're both grown men. I'm only assuming here. Does swinging on someone, punching someone, is that proport is that proportionalitywise for you to use deadly force? Big Bad Bull says yes. If she's 5 foot2, I'm 5'11 and I'm 270, she's 160 proportionately, she should be able to use a gun. Again, it's always up to the the the jury. Almond says, "No, I'm going be glad to bring y'all on the panel so y'all can have an open discussion about this." Let's continue.
>> Right. Like if it's like, "Oh, this has been my abuser. There's some history there. I'm really scared." Yes. Um, in Chud's case, that's a tough cell. And again, here's my thing. He's been going around citing these, "Oh, my first amendment, my second amendment." But so, you're going to roll the die on people thinking that your frame of mind was that you're scared or you thought your life was in danger when you're online saying for months, I'm going to leave a chimp's brain on the pavement. And this is he said it was a season finale. Like, all these, you know, these things are not going to get tossed. He's not going to be lucky like Luigi Manion who just got the backpack toss tossed out. All of these things are going to be active in your case.
>> So let me let me ask you this act. So so for you believe that his use of force wasn't proportionate to what happened to him. So I said cuz you you believe one punch doesn't constitute as justification for deadly force. Fair.
Yes. Then I asked you, well what if it was a 5'1 and this dude punched her?
Would she be just shooting him? Right.
>> It'd be a better case, right? Perfect.
So what you just did there, I don't think you like what you just did there was you basically made it oh for their girl the force is reasonable, right? But for I don't think so. And this is why self-defense is so important. It does.
>> Did Myron really just plug his book in here? Why women deserve even less.
>> Oh my god.
>> Doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what you think. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The only thing that matters is the person that used the force and what was going on at their mind at the time of the act when they pulled the trigger or decided to use deadly force. And it's very important to know also and I went into detail with this with a self-defense lawyer, one of the best lawyers in the country and he also agrees with me on this when it comes to self-defense and using deadly force within milliseconds that decision could be made. Right? This is what protects people from getting wrongly uh prosecuted when they have had a reasonable inclination to believe their uh life was in danger. For example, let's say you get into a road rage incident, right? You get out the car. The other dude gets out the car. He says, "Fuck you, act blah blah blah."
All this other and then you see him go like this, right? And you see something silver. You pull out your piece and you shoot him dead, right? But then you find that, >> right? And then but you find out, oh, it was a pocketk knife, right? Or it was a cell phone. Well, now would a reasonable person have reason to believe that after a car crash, right, a fender bender and they're out on the street fighting each other and the guy comes out aggressively and says some things about you and then he reaches like this, you see the shine, the light shine on it and you're like, "No way. I'm not taking a chance. You shoot him." You could argue that you were acting reasonably given the facts that were given to you. Why do I say all this? I say all this to say we don't know what was going on when was assaulted and for us to dismiss it and say, "Oh, he got punched one time in the face. That doesn't constitute his deadly force." We can't say that. Let's say let's just let's say he got hit in the back of the head. Let's say he got hit in an area where it knocked the wind out of him and he wouldn't be able to defend himself. Let's say he got a hold of his mace. I know uh this dude carries mace around with him, right? So, we don't know all the different provoking factors that led to pulling the trigger. But when it comes to self-defense, it's never based on what the 2020 hindsight is like me and you were doing. It's based on what was known to at the time you pulled the trigger. That's the only thing that matters. And what you're doing right now is an amazing um defense attorney stance. And like if I'm his attorney, I'm hiring you, a former law enforcement agent as an expert witness in a in a jify. But there's a few things to consider, right? First and foremost, the reason why he's doing all these things is going to end up hurting him, right? The fact that there's actually audio recorded at the moment where he's even explaining it and it's it's now to the world where he literally explains how it happened. And he says, "Well, I went up to the guy." The guy says, "Hey, whatever." He doesn't want to kind of engage. He says, "Yo, you better not see that. I got PTSD." He explains that none of his explanation said I was in fear for my life. Now, granted, you know, that's not the only time.
>> He said he had to he said he had to defend himself, but it's also here's another thing too, A you got to remember.
>> Well, hold on. This is another thing that's being taken into consideration, right? A lot of people always talk about what was said and what was said on record and all this that and the other.
Even in the Carmelo Anthony case, it was heavily debated here on this channel and even all across social media that what he said to the school resource officer, which was not a police officer, that that should be taken into consideration.
I told him not to touch me. I told him don't uh don't put his hands on me. I had to do what I had to do. Whatever what was said to the school resource officer, a lot of people saying that that should be thrown out of court because he wasn't read his rights. Well, if that's going to be the standard, then the same standard should be in this Chud the Builder case. But you know, it's up to court of public opinion. Now, even when Carmemelllo Anthony was questioned by the police officer, he even then went on to explain or really just give details as to his account of what to happen. A lot of people were saying, well, that should be thrown out as well because he wasn't read his rights. And even still, when it came down to his bond consideration, a lot of things was came into play. And the judge herself, I think, even took that into account.
That's why she reduced his bond. That's why she even let him out of jail. So, a lot of people are saying from the those who are supporting Chad the Builder that what's being done to him is racially driven and that it's wrong because as a as a white man, he's not being the he's not being given the fair treatment that a lot of other people who've been in his situation is getting because his bond is still at a million dollars. And I think if I'm not mistaken, he's still in jail.
And Carmelo Anthony and all he did was shoot someone. And Carmelo Anony's situation, he took someone's life. his bond was reduced and on top of that he's at home.
So, excuse me. So, a lot of people's like all of those racial injustice that systemic racism that y'all talk about.
Apparently, it does not exist or at least it did not exist when they came to Carmelo Anthony. Jim Porter says he brought a knife to attract me. It was premeditated. Facts. A lot of people are having that distinction. A lot of people on the um on on a lot of people when it comes to the Ch Builder incident can say that he brought a gun while doing content that can be premeditated as well. I'm just here asking the questions. Brandon says in my opinion that Carmelo Anthony case was a lot more political than race. Well, I think that Carmelo's Anony's case only got the attention that it got because people start painting a racist narrative about it. They wanted to make it about race.
They wanted to bring it about uh public consumption and and sympathy and empathy even when it came down to the GoFundMe and the give sins go. If I'm not mistaken, this same thing happened with the the young white woman who caught a black person a a [ __ ] in the park and she got over a million dollars within a few days on her gift and go. Carmelo Anony's give and go is crazy as up there. Uh Dee says, "Who is they?" When you say who is they, what what question?
You got to be a little bit more specific when you say who is they. So thing is there's a clear contrast between the two. Let's continue.
>> No, no.
>> That's a huge phrase, >> right? He he hasn't established where he feels in like he's in fear of his life.
He says the guy punches him. He never says, "Hey, >> you don't have to feel >> Well, there's the other thing, too. He uh Well, hold on. Wait. I got to I got to hear what he about to say.
>> Feels in like he's in fear of his life."
He says the guy punches him. He never says no.
>> Yeah, you don't have to fear for your life act. It could be it's not just that it's not just like you feel like you're going to die. It could be serious bodily injury, too. Serious bodily injury can also constitute for deadly force, right?
>> I understand why why is making that argument because even in the case with Renee Good, a lot of people saying it was just a car. It wouldn't have killed him. You don't know that. What you don't know is is that this man was also drugged by an illegal alien. And even he had the right to use deadly force per the law. So there's that. Let's continue.
>> Let's say you're a diabetic, right? And you know that your your sugar's low.
This dude comes up to you and hits you, right? You already start seeing stars.
Well, now if you pull out a gun and shoot him.
>> Camp says they are the ones that makes the rules. Nobody sees who they are, >> right? Cuz according to what you're saying, you're like, "Oh, a punch doesn't constitute as justification for deadly force." My argument to that is it can depending on who the individual is.
We also don't know if he didn't follow up with a flurry of punches. Every punch that he throws gives Jud more and more justification.
>> What's going on, Jeep? Uh I want to reference another case in this. Hey Naomi, what's going on? Uh uh JK says a single punch is not either. No justification possible if person wasn't following up the attack. I hate to bring up another case, but uh y'all know about the case with Zimmerman, right? Put a one in the chat if y'all know about the case with George Zimmerman. Everybody should know about the case with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. It's being argued that well it was argued that George Zimmerman did not have a right to defend himself and it's also being argued that Trayvon Martin had a right to defend himself. Well, per the law and because of small eggshed hell uh uh egg shed uh eggsh is it eggshell theory? I think it's called the eggshell theory. because of the egg shell theory. Trayvon Martin apparent for what was being argued in court is that he was bashing George Zimmerman's head on the ground. Now George Zimmerman did have a firearm on him. My question to y'all in the chat, if someone is bashing your head on the ground, do you have a right to utilize that firearm to defend your life? That's my question to y'all. TV truck. It says you can't be an antagonizer and then play victim.
>> It didn't fly for one second. It's not >> you don't know how much I agree with you on that. Britney, what's going on?
Britney, what's going on? What's going on? Let's continue.
>> He heard go kill that guy, whatever. And I know you mentioned before, yo, this dude walks around provoking people, etc. So, check this out. Here's another thing that's very important. Your state of mind when you use the deadly force also matters. So, if you've been getting death threats, >> uh, Benny says, "Are you saying is it are you saying it is okay to use a gun and kill an unarmed person?"
So, I knew this question was going to come up, so I have to answer it. Benny, let me go ahead and answer your question respectfully. Am I saying it is okay to use a gun to kill an unarmed person?
If your grandmother had a gun legally, if your grandmother had her gun and someone is bashing your grandmother up against the door, does your grandmother have a right to use that gun to defend herself?
It's a simple question because we talk about proportionality.
Let's say your grandmother's 75 years old.
Jim Porter says, "What was Martin doing in a gated community at 2:30 in the morning?" I don't know. I wasn't there.
I do know that uh per a lot of amendments in the Constitution, you can go wherever you want to go.
But yes, uh uh the person in the chat, Benny, am I saying that it's okay for to use a gun to kill an unarmed person in certain situations? Yes, absolutely.
Let's continue.
If people have been threatening to kill you, if your address has been doxed, if you've been going through situations where people are stalking you, whatever, all of that actually gives more right reasonable belief that his life is in danger and that he can use deadly force.
Now, I'm not I don't have to say that's I agree with that or I'm happy that that's what it is. I'm just being objective here and unbiased that when you have threats on your life, you get doxed and you're like a polarizing figure like him. His use of force ladder is much easier to climb because he can reasonably articulate that look, I'm a controversial guy. People come up to me, people say they want to kill me, people have >> TV trucker says none of those cases you're talking about is even close to this case. Well, I would draw a very heavy distinction because a lot of people are arguing on social media about this racial double standard because Chad the Builders bond is still a million dollars and he's in jail. Carmelo Anony's bond was reduced to $250,000 because it was racist to be at a million dollars and he's on house arrest.
Sorry, that's all I'm saying. Sam Had45. Is that the real Sam Had? I don't think that's the real Sam Had.
I don't think that's the real Sam Had.
If it is, the link is pinned. If y'all want to join, y'all can. But let's continue.
>> These threats against me, blah, blah, blah. So, that's why I did what I did.
Also, interesting uh side bit. The dude that punched him had made a post on social media saying that he was going to harm him. So, we don't know if knew that. He might have recognized the guy or the guy might have said, "I'm going to kill you. You know, I knew I was going to run into you. I'm going to kill you." Well, any of that stuff that's said can obviously be reasonably looked at as uh a threat on his life, which allows him to use deadly force. And keep in mind, you don't have to get hit, right? Or >> similarly, I'm going to leave a chin's brain on the page. So, so that will be I will say though, everything we're saying and and we're kind of like trying to operate from like this hypo hypothetical type of >> Yeah, cuz we don't know all the facts.
We don't know all of them.
It is kind of almost nerfed though by the fact that yes, maybe if it was some random guy that didn't have a didn't leave a long established history and trail of audio and >> I just have to point this out cuz this is funny. Sharon Stefen says Chud is a racist.
Crazy Train says Carmelo Anthony is a racist. Proves my point. Let's continue.
video of him promising or promising to do certain things or acting in certain situations. Keep in mind there's also a video that or video or some depiction of what happened because according to the arrest warrant they said that he was in a bladed stance with his weapon out before the guy ever punched him. So already you're cooked like so the weapon is out. So if if if you then so let's put it in perspective in in how I'm going to do it. So you antagonize people with words, they now start to either, you know, react back, maybe not even physically yet, and you have your gun out. This like he didn't antagonize them. It's important act. He didn't antagonize them on this situation. The only fact pattern that matters is this situation. All the stuff he did before is kind of >> So he never called this guy.
>> No, what he said, what they what they told me was he said, "You better not call me that or say that I'm chimping out." And he goes, "Or what you're going to ch out."
>> How would he throw for his gun then?
supposed they're saying he's in a bladed stance with his weapon out.
>> Why would he do that if the other party, remember you said that he walked away?
Yep. It seems like he's deescalating.
He's not antagonizing. Why would he need to pull his weapon? Unless you're saying this guy literally was a unhinged guy trying to attack him.
>> Sure, I can answer that. It was probably pepper spray. So, walks around with bear mace all the time and that's typically what he uses. So, we don't know if he wasn't reaching for his bear mace. What?
Well, the the CNN personnel who uh read the arrest warrant said he reached for his firearm and he stood in a bladed stance and this was before the altercation.
>> It's it's not illegal. Let's let's go with that fact pattern. Even though what I've been told is he got hit first and you heard the gunshots.
>> Let's assume that he was with a bladed.
>> I believe that too. I'm just saying there are some people where even after you got your gun out, they think you're not going to fire and they'll still hit you.
>> Okay. So So perfect. Let's use that fact pattern. Let's dismiss mine. Let's let's use yours. Let's assume that the guy is walking towards him when he has a bladed stance saying, "Hey, you better not."
Which obviously >> uh Benny says, "You are not law enforcement. You are not allowed to question people." That's not true. You can question anyone that you want.
Whether they want to answer, that's on them. Even when it comes to law enforcement, if they ask you a question, that does not mean that you have to answer. I I think a lot of people really need to understand this. Just because Just because a police officer asks you a question does not mean that you have to answer. You don't have to answer any question that they ask you. You can just simply say, "I'm not answering questions. What's your name?" Not answering questions.
Asking questions is free speech.
Exactly.
>> Implies he has a weapon. You can argue now that he's coming at me when I'm warning him I have a weapon. This guy's crazy and wants to hurt me. So, you can flip it around the other way around.
>> That would also be assault. Correct.
Like, >> no. If >> you have no You have no duty to retreat.
You have no duty to retreat. Okay. I'm having an argument with a guy and I pulled out a loaded gun on him. Mhm.
>> That's nothing. If you if you have a loaded gun on someone, remember there's been no physicality yet, and that person punches you. The person who punched you isn't wrong.
>> Okay. You said, Hold on, hold on, hold on. You said reaching for. Now you're saying he pulled it out and pointed.
That's a big difference. Reaching for versus this is two different things.
>> No, actually Myron's wrong on this.
Okay. I don't have my gun on me, but I do own I do own firearms. Do y'all understand what branding is? Right. Let me give you an example. I'm not going to stand up, but if I had my gun on my waist and that it was concealed and I lift my and I lift my hoodie up, is that brandishing? I'm asking that to everybody in the chat. If I if I have my gun concealed within my waistband, right? If I'm bladder if I'm blad bladder carrier and I lift my hoodie up, is that brandishing? brandishing.
Okay. Yes. All right. Cool. If my gun is on my hip and it's holstered and you see my gun and I tell baby my my camera's, you know, my glasses is reflected.
>> All right. So, if you brandish a weapon, that's still brandishing. So, you don't have to pull it out. I don't have to pull it out. This is a comb for anybody that blow. OH, WILL PULLED OUT A GUN.
THIS IS A COMB. I don't have to pull my gun out and blow. Hey, Nick. I could just one time. That's still brandishing. So, Myra's wrong on that one. Sorry, Myra.
>> Two completely different things.
>> Okay. So, so I I want to go by the exact wording. They're saying the arrest warrant is showing that he turned into a blade of stance and reached for his firearm.
>> Okay. It's not illegal to reach for your gun.
>> Okay.
>> It's not illegal. Well, >> if someone >> And we don't even know if it's a gun yet. Like I said, he carries bear mace with him.
>> It's not illegal to reach for your gun.
If your gun is concealed and you o and you openly show someone your gun, that's brandishing. You don't have any intent to use the gun, too.
>> But if if you're saying self-defense, it works both ways. If someone feels you're reaching for a gun based on what they've heard you say in the past and they punch you, it feels like it would be their self-defense, right?
>> Well, they No, because he closed the distance. It was the aggressor. The aggressor can't claim self-defense.
Well, >> the aggressor can't claim self-defense.
Let make sure I'm understanding this correctly. The aggressor cannot claim self-defense. Okay. Well, the point I was trying to say is that threatening someone with a gun is is the person being aggressor. If if I have a gun on my hip and I'm arguing with you and I and I lift and I lift my shirt up that you can see the gun and I say, "Yo, my what you want to do?" Yo, what's up? We can do it any way you want. And you see the gun. That is the initial aggressive event. Even though I've not touched it.
No, I've made it with a weapon. But you're missing a very important part.
Act.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> If let's use a scenario. Let's say me and you are beefing. I see you on the street, right? You see me coming towards you. We're in the state of Florida or Tennessee. Hey, I heard you talking that say that me now. You want to get packed up? You go like this. Yo, don't try it, bro. Get the [ __ ] out of here. Right. I keep talking and I close the distance even more like I'm about to strike you, bro. So you don't got to wait come up and strike you. You could pretty much reason believe that I'm trying to hurt you despite the fact that you gave me multiple warnings and we have a beef and a history where I'm threatening to I just I'm going to pack you up. Now you have reasonable suspect hurt you, create serious bodily injury.
That's all that's necessary. The and I don't have a self-defense now because I was the one that started with you and I closed the distance. If I close the distance, I'm the aggressor. I no longer enjoy the benefits of a self-defense argument. I I feel like what you're saying is a tall order of a lot of circumstances that needs to fall in his particular favor despite any of the things that people have seen. But again, here's a few hurdles we have to get back.
>> Let's have fun with it then. So, real quick, would you would it be fair to say the first fact pattern I gave you, right, which is what the people that are watching the stream on Pump One all told me. He's walking around. He uh he sees them pointing at him and laughing. He walks up to start a conversation. Hey, how you guys doing today? Hey, get the out of here. We don't want you around here. All right. All right, I can walk wherever I want, but it is what it is.
Walks away. Guy closes distance, says the stuff, I got PTSD. Call me a chip and see what happens. Um, what are you what you going to out? Punches from all the witnesses I've heard from, he never called anyone a he didn't say anything until the guy said, "You better not say, oh, are you going to chimp out or sorry, are you going to say I'm chimp out?"
Blah, blah, blah. Threaten him. Then he says, "Oh, or what? You're going to chimp out?" Then that's when he struck him. That's the first fact pattern. So, I think in that one, he 1,000% has self-defense. He walked >> facts. I was just about to say that. L Euro. By Myron's logic, Carmelo technically has a self-defense case.
What up, Gas Mass? What's going on, Sister Tracy? By that logic, Carmelo has a self-defense case. For those of you who don't remember, Carmemelllo Anthony was up under a tent during the rain. The one of the brothers, Austin Metave, I guess, uh, they had an altercation and he says, "Touch me and find out." And Austin touches him. So he reaches in his book bag. Touch me and find out. And I guess Austin touches him again and he comes up out with the knife. Bang.
According to Myron Carmelo is innocent.
Here's the problem. Proportionality.
Everybody say proportionality in the chat. So that's something that we keep on missing. And we only going to review this for like a little bit more and then I'm going open up the uh the panel.
>> Way he didn't provoke. The guy closed the distance. He punched him first and you know obviously shots were fired. We don't saw. We didn't see what happened, but you can hear a struggle. You can presume. Go ahead.
>> I think Dalton, I think that's his name.
Dalton Etherly or whatever his name is.
Um, him using out will be very replaceable of him using it in terms of it being seen as a fight. Okay. Someone tells you, hey, listen, I have a particular condition. Don't do this. And you say, wait. Or you're going to out.
And that I believe is going to be seen not by every jury in in every vicinity, but I I think overwhelmingly definitely enough for an indictment where people are like, "Well, why did you say it then?" If the guy gives you a warning, that's that is a warning, right? Hey, don't start that other stuff or else I might have to react. I can't help myself. Well, I don't know if he said that, but then you can you then follow up by saying, "Don't say you're out."
that would then be I would say insightful or what you know a lot of you know in many places the um the law considers as fighting words. You don't think?
>> No, not at all. Because that removes all autonomy from the guy, right? If if we really had this this whole concept of fighting words is is ludicrous cuz if we went off that precedent like basically I could just say I'm a and then >> there's no legal precedence for fighting words >> punch you and be justified in it. Like that would never fly, right? him saying I have PTSD, you better not say uh champ or right and then he says or what you gonna out >> now and there's also this thing as well right you can't compel you cannot compel someone's speech just because you have a condition right I think this is some something that a lot of people have been arguing for the like the past few years especially when it comes to this whole liberal progressive uh conservative democrat republican this whole entire era right a lot of people are saying that, oh well, you can't use these words because I have this condition. I can say whatever I want to say. My I my my freedom of speech, my constitutional right, my civil right should not be impeded upon or encroached upon just because you have a condition. If anything, if you have a condition, then maybe you need to deal with that. I cannot my free speech will not be stepped on just because you c you have a condition.
Like and then the guy punches him. Dude, like we're all adults here. Like that's just completely unacceptable behavior.
And he closed a distance against him, too. Keep in mind, bro, whoever closes the distance and is the aggressor.
>> Factory says there is a legal precedent for fighting words has been used in cases before. All right.
>> Is the in this situation?
>> Okay. And I know you've said this before, but do you really believe that the only reason why he's did you saw the charges? Yeah. You can't believe that all the charges are coming from, okay, just societal pressure and hey, let's throw this to a grand jury and see what they say. Um, you don't believe any of his actions and well, let me start with this. So, do you think he's justified in the shot >> with the first fact pattern I gave you where he again from the people that saw the pump stream, that's self-defense all day. The guy came to close the distance on him, he hit him first and >> you could shoot him.
>> Well, again, we don't know what >> Well, Blake, stop right there. So even with that Carmelo Anthony was up under the tent.
He was approached by the brothers or by Austin Metave by that logic or by by that by by that that breakdown. Carmelo Anthony Simpson even if he did say touch me and find out Carmelo Anthony Simpson >> knows when he decided to pull the trigger. It he could have hit him twice and knocked the wind out of him. He could have maybe had a weapon from what saw he could have said something like oh you're going to die today. Like all of these different factors can easily help or justify an escalation to deadly.
>> TB trucking says he doesn't believe white men do anything wrong. H >> force cuz obviously a fight situation every millisecond the facts are changed.
>> 313 Steven says US constitutional law fighting words are defined as words that by their way utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace established by the Supreme Court in 1942. 313 Stephen. Let me tell you this though, and this is why even though I appreciate you bringing that to the uh to the the chat, I always ask this, right? Who's to say what is and what is not fighting words? My brother Christopher Jay in the side always says what's a three for you is not a is may be a 10 for me or what's a three for me might be a 10 a 10 for you. Right? If someone says to you, I'mma slap the [ __ ] out you. Is that fighting words? If a woman says it to you in the midst of a um a sexually in engagement, oh, I'mma slap the [ __ ] out you. Is that fighting words? For some people, that might be a turn on. For others, that might just be you just talking. Does that necessarily mean that it's fighting words? Is there a is there a a list that says these definitely are fighting words? 303 says that would be inciting violence. Well, again, if someone says, "Oh, I'm I'mma do this to you." Is that fighting works for some people who may not feel threatened by you? You might not be a threat. Does that mean that you're a threat just because you said it or does or does it mean that you're a threat because how the person took it? Right.
Let's continue.
>> Which will allow you to justify the use of deadly force. So, you know, you can say, oh, one punch doesn't suffice. But as I explained before with the example, well, to a it suffices, right? So by definition that means the person that is using the force must have a reasonable reason or a reasonable belief that they were in fear of death and or some serious bodily injury which serious bodily injury could just be a broken bone. It's not that high of a barrier.
So with the fact pattern that I have, I think it's self-defense all day. Now the other one you gave cuz you gave a second scenario where you said he came to him and he was bladed like this and he was reaching for something. It's not illegal to reach for something and we don't even know if it was his mace or his gun cuz he always carries mace around him with him. as well. And he normally always maces people first when they come to him. So, we don't know if it wasn't >> establish establishing that he was reaching for something. Um, especially given the fact that there hasn't, unless maybe he identified it there was a threat before kind of shows that he was already in a position to be the offender or he was anticipating getting hit, but there is no threat at that point, right?
And apparently he doesn't he doesn't get hit until he says something which that I would cons consider and I think that would constitute fighting words, right?
You know, again, you can't just antagonize people and shoot them. Like that that would be like the greatest thing ever, right? Like you go out like you would you would the person hits you, you shoot them dead. Like that like that would be like the best thing to just trick people out of their spot. You know what I mean? But um >> Yeah. Well, the thing is, >> yeah, that would that would change the entire the entire scope of legal precedent all across America. If anybody could come up to you and just say something to you and cause you to have a reaction and then they shoot you, it'll be problem, >> bro. It's like saying someone's out is not fighting words. Like what are you going to out? It's not fighting words.
>> No, absolutely it is.
>> You think that's fighting words? a a racial anything towards if it's a homophobic slur, a racial epithet, it's all all of that is going to consider it's going to go towards you are using speech in a way to violently offend to either cause a reaction or to start an altercation. Right?
>> That's not true. And I I hate to I hate to disagree with a on this one a little bit. Right. This this is where I disagree with a on this one. When it comes to racially when it comes to the racial language, right? We all know, we all know all the colorful language words that's out there that can be used to raise weight, right? Uh Braden says, um, speech isn't violence. This is true.
Now, let's talk about it for a second.
Right? If I say, "What's up, my nigga?"
Is that racially is that is that is that racial is that racial language? What's up, my [ __ ] Or if I say, "BACK YOUR [ __ ] ASS UP, [ __ ] I'mma hit you in your [ __ ] nigga." Or, "What's up, nigga?" If I just say, "What's up, nigga?" And I say, "Ah, what's up, nigga?"
Same sentence, different inclinations, does that mean that both are racially driven or one is more of a welcoming greeting and the other one is more of a invitation to violence? So, when even when it comes to racial language, because even in the black community, a lot of people don't they get mad when I say this, in the black community, we use it so freely. We we use it as a term of endearment and as a form of a threat.
Let's continue.
>> If someone All right, let me ask you a question. If someone came If someone if someone walked up to me and be like, "Get that grandma." Is that Falcon Wars you?
>> No.
>> Okay. Well, all right. So, so you might be a little bit different.
>> Like, no. Like, I I would be I would be like, "This guy's weird." And leave.
>> Okay. So, you have much more tolerance.
I I think I think if we've looked at the history of what's called, you know, even fighting words, um really even offending people, like offending people just to get them off whatever interrupting and offending people, especially with slurs are usually generally considered that.
>> Well, I'm looking right now. It's words meant to incite violence such as they may not be protected under the first amendment. Um, so basically >> what is that >> out when I hear you basically said >> I don't think that constitutes as a justification to punch somebody >> like there's no justification to punch somebody like zero.
>> I'm not arguing I'm not arguing that it means you could punch someone. I'm arguing that the rhetoric that you approached that person with is now eliminated what you claimed you were there to do, which is practice your first amendment right. Cuz now you're not practicing your first amendment right because you've approached with words and type of speech that's not protected. So you so so already your goal is not even within the bounds of what is actually accepted. And then what happens from there we now have to look at differently. So now, okay, all right, fine. Let's say he it was some protected speech and the guy punches him. Well, if it stops there, the guy gets an assault charge. It's a simple battery, right?
That that's like a misdemeanor some places unless he really goes crazy on you, it maybe would turn into a felony, but that's what it is there. When that is the only precursor, right, we got to like again, you know, and maybe for your audience, I'm using a ridiculous example. It's like, yo, if we all agree to go shoot up like our enemy's block, right, and we all hop in a car and we're going to go there, right? And during the commission of this crime, one of us gets shot, they're probably going to charge us with murder. Or if we go to rob the bank and one of us get killed by by the security guard, yeah, you guys get charged with the murder. So, it's like in a lot of cases, you got to follow the >> uh ACT did a very bad job at explaining that. So, I'm going to try to explain a little bit better. for everybody that's following in the chat. Hopefully hopefully y'all still here. Put a uh make sure y'all like the stream. Um if I'm a bank robber, right? If put please make sure y'all listen, right? If I'm a bank robber and let's say I'mma pick somebody out the chat. I'mma take pick TB trucking. TB trucking. Are you okay with me using you for this example? Put it one in the chat if you okay with that. Let's say TB Trucking is a security guard. Okay. And gas mass is at the window. If I'm a bank robber and I walk into the bank and I go to rob the bank and on my way out of leaving the bank, TBE Trucking is the security guard. So he has his gun at me.
Thankfully enough, gas mask was at the window. He left. He makes it outside.
In the midst of me shooting, remember I'm the bank robber. In the midst of me shooting at TBE Trucking, who's a security guard, I end up striking and killing gas mass.
I get charged with that murder.
Even if I was only intending to shoot to harm or to to kill TBE trucking, if I shoot T if I shoot TBE and that bullet hits gas mass and kills him, I get charged with that murder, that's how that works. So, I just had to explain that really quick. Let's continue.
>> The sequence of events of how this crime is committed or how it devolves to the last step. So is or is the first offender by utilizing these fighting words that then again it doesn't justify but it's the sequence of events right like for example you didn't rob the bank but walking into the bank you had the intent of robbing and then the security guard shoots your man right so again you got to follow the sequence of events and in none of the sequence of events is this guy being just unnecessarily provoked and and and unnecessarily being just like completely hey >> hey TB truck you That's a terrible example. That's literally example that he just used.
>> Let let us call you a name that is um um provocative, you know, or or or you know, or just, you know, provoke you.
And um I I think that's where >> so Okay. Yeah. So um number one, um in this scenario, like I said before, wasn't the first offender because the guy came up to him. So it was the guy that was the first offender.
>> He started having a conversation first with started.
>> Yeah. He said, >> well, it's not against the law to have a conversation with someone. So just because Chud the builder walked up to him does not mean that he was breaking the law.
>> Hello. How you guys doing? He didn't swear at them. He didn't say anything.
He walked away. Then that's when the guy came up and said he knew who he was. He was like, "Hey, you better not say that chip out to me or call me in otherwise."
>> All right. So Chud walks up to this group of people. He says something to him. They don't want to have a conversation. He's walking away. The guy Dalton approaches Chud and this is where we at right now.
>> We promise cuz I got PTSD blah blah blah. And then he says, "Or what you going to chimp out?" Then he strikes also real quick.
>> All right. So Chud says, "Are you gonna chimp out?" And then the guy punches him.
>> Assuming that he Let's Let's assume did call him an Let's Let's go best case scenario for the prosecution. Let's say he did call him an still is not considered a fighting uh according to US law. Still not.
>> According to US law, he says the word [ __ ] is not considered to be fighting words.
I would argue in some in in most communities in black community, absolutely it does. And then on top of that act, just to be fair, it's not a fighting.
>> Fighting words aren't necessarily just all spelt out. It's fight words have a meaning behind them, which means anything that has and this is why, you know, the sneak debate constantly comes up is like if there's a shared meaning of of offense or or provoke uh um me trying to provoke you, that is going to be seen as a fight. There's not like clearly defined fight.
>> No, of course. But what I'm saying is because you said racial term >> TB trucker says to be seen to be an antagonizer is okay >> terms are considered fighting words they're not now what you're referring >> Curtis says hate speech is not protected >> referring to is within certain contexts right >> man calling a white man calling a black guy the hard er or saying he's out that is as fighters as could be okay okay to you >> in the United States of America >> okay again I'm what you might constitute stitute as fighting words. Is it constituted as fighting words according to US law? I want >> Okay, so I hate to do this. I really hate to do this.
I'mma ask everybody in the chat, a white man calling a black man a [ __ ] [ __ ] G- E. A white man calling a black man a [ __ ] Is a fight about to break out? I'm asking everybody in the chat. Is a fight about to break out?
That's my question. That's that's the bas that's the most simplest way I can put that.
>> Clear about this. Like you might take offense and be like, "Yo, those are fine words. I'm whooping your ass." According to the law, the term isn't a fighting.
Now, I'm going to be charitable. Let's assume the was used with other behaviors that might be >> Wait, >> my you got to get off of this, bro. If you're going to argue that Chud used the word [ __ ] at the end of the day, guess what? YOU CAN ONLY ASSUME it's going to be a it's going to be a fight, you going you could uh Arman says yes and that's why they do it.
Chuck says it wouldn't I wouldn't fight over that. Okay, no problem. More than often, yes. You saying that that could never be a fight or you're saying just in itself it's not a fighting but >> by law it's not a fighting word but even if we're just dealing with out of law >> if a white man CALLS ME A N hey [ __ ] oh you best believe I'm coming to get that I'm coming to collect >> because contextually the way this guy when I when I hear him say I hear him saying that >> oh and wait hold DJ academics. Just because someone say, "Are you going to chimp out?" That does not necessarily mean it has to be racist again. And I I like that they're having this back and forth, but at the end of the day, just because you call a white man now, a white man calling a black man or saying to a black man, "Are you going to chimp out? Can it be racist?" Yes. Is it fighting words?
It's up to y'all. Oh, by the way, I see it's 300 of y'all in the building.
Please make sure that you're all doubletapping your screen, triple tapping your screen till you see that like and the panel link is pinned. I know a lot of y'all on uh if you're watching on your phone, you're not going to be able to click the StreamYard link.
So, what I will do is as people start coming up on the panel, I will um I will switch y'all over that's from vertical, I will switch y'all over to the horizontal stream. That way y'all can be able to join the panel so y'all can have the conversation.
Marsha says, "This man is taking up for Chud and now I understand how he lost his girl to a guy on roller skates." God damn. Kjack, what's going on, my brother? OG, what's happening? Don't happen. Chud is instigating fight with blacks and using the reaction as a re a reason to shoot them legally. Appreciate that. Um, Gas Mass says, "If you get mad about being told about chimping out, that means you you see yourself as a monkey."
I hate to even agree almost with gas mass on this, but I gotta agree with the logic. If someone calls you a [ __ ] and you answer to it, you see yourself as a [ __ ] That's the argument that's being made across social media. If someone calls you broke and you answer to being broke, that means that you're you see yourself as broke. But I I get what he's saying, though.
>> My brain substitutes.
>> Sure. Sure. But remember everything notice how you respond to me like, you know, from your subjective take where whereas I'm telling >> the anecdotal thing here. I I think I think I I think we're this is where we probably um depart in many like you know um uh uh mutual thinking. I think for the remember listen you know even my audience my audience know I am not Tariq Nasheed they know like listen when act feels offended by this this is something that the majority of people who are you know melanated are going to feel offended by this is not normal like and I know when you say that you wouldn't feel offended by the I think you're the very small minority I think if you walk up to most people that are consider themselves or have some ancestry >> uh by By the way, for for those y'all that's um for those of y'all that's that the audio is breaking out, that's because he edited the video. Some language that was being used, he edited out that emanate from that sector, if they heard a white man say the to them immediately, it would offend. They would feel um um like someone is trying to either oppress him or and again, it's just the is loaded with meanings for people of a certain color.
>> All right. What what >> saying you could brush it off is very different.
>> All right, let's let's let's go. Let's go towards the scenario. Okay. Are people adults and full-fledged members of society?
>> Absolutely.
>> So, if they're adults and full-fledged members of society, right, that have autonomy, well, that also comes with responsibility. If you punch somebody for saying a just because you're a that actually looks bad on the race cuz I'll tell you this, if I went to a neighborhood and started throwing Roman salutes and saying the >> Come on, Ryman. I mean, Myin, come on, dog. You can't do that. You can't say that. That looks bad on the black race for someone reacting to a usage of a word. Although I could agree with you that words should not equal out to violence. You're talking about on a public level, on a social level, most people are not going to react to racism in a positive way. I think we can all agree on that, right? If someone is being openly, disrespectfully, disingenuous, I'm sorry, purposefully racist towards you, you're more than likely not going to have a positive reaction, right? So on a on a legal illegal legal side, I can understand what he's saying. But on a social level, if a person's being openly racist to you and they're being derogatorily racist to you, you're probably not going to have a positive reaction. So you can't say that this looks bad on the black community. I mean, you can, but at the end of the day, not all black people react like that. Some of us do, some of us don't.
Let's continue.
>> I pretty much won't have to worry about anything. They're not going to come up and punch me because they're exercising self-restraint cuz they're adults. So, your argument is basically, "Hey, bro, just don't say because they don't have self-control and they're going to punch you in the face." That's basically what you're trying to say. Now, going back to what I was saying about the whole law thing, the term is not enough to be considered fighting words. It needs to be utilized with some other eminent threat of violence in this scenario.
Now, let's go back to the builder case because we're being very specific. I only said the word to be charitable, but if doesn't meet fighting requirement, definitely doesn't. And then to go further than that, We're going to go up this rain on the pavement.
>> Okay, I can address that after. I can address that after. So is not considered a fighting unless some type of imminent violence is behind it. Right. Next, if not a fighting and we can pretty much conclude that now isn't isn't a fighting either. Then to add insult to injury to finish the guy closed the distance on him then said you better not say or and then he says or what you're going to out that's when he punched him. So, this guy has zero justification to do what he did. Again, I am going off of the facts and circumstances.
>> See what Myin is doing here. Um, he's trying to really walk it down, but in more ways than one, he's defend I think everyone can agree in the chat. I'm going just ask y'all, do y'all think that Myin is defending Chud in this in this particular debate? Would y'all say that Myin is, you know, pretty much taking a position that he's defending Chud in his actions? Uh the hus the fizz factor says in Tennessee any words used to provoke a reaction from a person can be considered fighting words and if a fight ensues you then have a duty to calm the situation otherwise lose your self-defense claim facts. Uh he always defend white man over black man. Okay.
Kusa says they will never say they they will never say that to the Jays. They react to what YouTubers say all the time. All right. Gas mass. I don't think so. All right. on what happened that day. Now, let's address that tweet you mentioned with uh somebody on a sidewalk, blah blah blah. Now, obviously, that's not the best look, right? But I do think it's important to understand that you could be a Let me say this, you could be a criminal. You can be a a you know, a sex offender. You could be one of the most deplorable people ever. That does not deny you the right to defend yourself. You could say all kinds of crazy on the internet, but that does not mean that you can't defend yourself. So, the tweet, I hate to say, is completely irrelevant to this specific use of force. I >> I think it's that's I disagree. I think his is entire background um makes this very different than >> that's not going to come in at trial though, act that the important like the the most important that none of that Wait, it won't you don't believe that his previous behaviors and tweets will come in at all?
>> No. Because what's going to happen is they the the prosecution is going to try. The prosecution is obviously going to try to put it in.
>> Well, here's the thing. is absolutely going to come in because number one and and that's another thing that uh Mr. Chud's going to learn. He said if you going to shoot somebody, you got to make sure you kill them. That boy's going to take the stand. You know what he's going to say? Hey, the reason why I said that to him that don't say this type of rhetoric is because I've seen him on social media many times. So, it's automatically going to come in. It's I've seen him on social media. He says this rhetoric. It's pissed me off.
There's context towards just us having a random run in. And if that guy takes a stance, you can't um the stand. You can't you can't immediately just >> You do realize that if the guy takes a stand and says what you just said, he's going to exonerate. You do realize that, right? You just made Chuck's case. You literally just made Chut's case, bro.
>> Not necessarily, >> bro. You just Yo, you No, wait, wait, wait.
>> You just made Chuck's case, bro.
>> No, no, because we disagree what the case is. We disagree what the case is.
The case isn't The case is not saying why did this altercation happen or who was the first person that was physically violent. My thing is if you like to pop that much, you better get security or learn to squabble up. You cannot shoot someone just because you get punched. I don't think I think the guy to shoot someone from the guy who punched him probably should get an assault charge honestly. However, it's going to be nerfed by the fact that he got shot. The point is if you are this raging who thinks that you're practicing your first amendment right, you better be a black belt cuz when somebody slaps you, you better be able to beat him to the ground, not try to shoot him and execute him. They didn't charge him with They didn't charge him with just aggravated assault, which means you shot him. They charged him with attempted murder, which means you tried to murder a man who punched you. And again, I know you say, "Well, maybe it's like 15 punches."
Well, clearly, you know, and I get it.
You know, you know, maybe they just overcharge, and we're going to see what it is. But the reason why he's sitting in jail now, can't even take the bond that that's coming through with the um um GoFundMe, this and third, is because you miscalculate. It's not only that you were doing some crazy [ __ ] and you should have knew this were going to be the consequences, white skin or not. So act, >> you operated in a place where now you have to go rely on a bunch of jurors to see your side. You got played as much as he was running around calling people, calling them the only person who was misinformed of the actual law. The guy who shot him, yes, he got shot, he's not getting charged. the only person who got handcuffs on him that that shown up to court looking when they say 1.25 25 million bail is you because everything you were doing wasn't fully backed by the law and you know it wasn't fully backed by the law. Again, I'm not so So you believe he's solely charged?
>> Okay, so number one, me and you both know that people get charged in high-profile cases like this that are racially motivated because the DA's office doesn't want to deal with it.
I'll be fair to you. Look at Carmelo Anthony when he >> and for those for those who are saying Carmelo Anthony's case has nothing to do with this. This is why I titled the stream the way I did and this is why I brought it up. Let's go ahead and listen. By the way, please make sure you get the likes up. Uh thank you to Thank you to Kim K with the $5 uh cash app. Thank you very much. It's greatly appreciated. If y'all want to support the show, you can go ahead and hit that cash app. It is dollar sign s L Y O U L I G HT. Thank you. Let's continue.
>> Stabbed Austin EAF. He claims self-defense, but they still arrested him. Why? Because the state doesn't want to have to deal with the backlash that can come whenever these, you know, racially charged cases and in someone dying. they'd rather push it to the grand jury or the jury. That's number one. Number two, when I mention that that stuff's not going to come in, you do realize if that stuff does come in about his past, all of that is going to give even more justification cuz he's an antagonizer. He's a controversial pe person. Everybody hates him. This allows him to be able to say, "Look, I'm on heightened alert cuz people are trying to kill me. They dox my address, blah blah. This dude came up to me. He's made threats to me before on Facebook."
>> Proven that he's provoking that particular incident.
>> No, he didn't, though. That's the point.
He did not provoke this. See, you're relying upon past streams to justify this guy coming up and assaulting because of what he did on other streams.
This use of force incident. Real quick, real quick. This use of force in >> uh Brain says, "Do you have PayPal?"
Yes, I do.
>> Is an isolated event and nothing really matters from before.
>> But my PayPal has my real name on it and I don't want people knowing my real name.
So, Brain, do me a favor. Send me an email.
Send me an email here. Uh, which email do I want to give you? Hold on.
>> You can be a murderer, a terrible person. That stuff isn't going to come in. Now, let's because I talked about this within Let me just finish. You said to him, "You're out." Yeah. If you said to that guy, he's out and for whatever reason he he takes that offense, you have started a train of events.
>> He didn't because that guy came up to him in this isolated incident of use of force walked away. The guy closed the distance. He was the one that provoked then he punched first. Responding or you gonna out does not give this guy the legal right to punch him under some ambiguous fighting terms phrase. We know doesn't even constitute for that. So how is chipping out going to constitute?
Dude, this is like this is opens up, man.
>> Wait, wait. You're constantly um you're restating my point without actual I never said he has the right to punch him. I've always >> You're saying provoked. You're arguing Chad provoked and I'm saying he didn't.
>> Hold on. You hear what I'm saying? I think he antagonized the situation, right? Fighting words do not get Hold on. I Hold on. I agree. Fighting words do not give people the right to assault you.
>> Okay.
>> However, once we start there and you get assaulted, it then doesn't give you the right to use deadly force. That's the point. So, >> no, it's based act. It's based on proportion. Proportionality plays a role in all of this.
Again, CH should have squabbled up or if you knew your squabble game was weak and you you had to pull the gun, you should have never been in that situation. So, yes, the guy's wrong for punching, but should have punched them back, not use that's not proportional force and and and I'm telling you I would love First of all, here's here's this is how much I don't care about if this case if a lift a finger at me, I'm killing him straight up. Like this this is not if you think if you think he's going to get off off shooting a guy cuz a guy punched him punched him one like by the way there's no like flurry of punches we heard we heard the guy hits him right if he gets off by being able to legally shoot someone cuz someone punched him let's end fist fights cuz you punched me I'm going to see you we going to say the seventh heaven okay >> that's true this is going to set up this well gas mass says academic has no logic uh technically this case would set a precedent if this if this case. If if Chud the Builder beats this case, the precedent is going to be that if someone says something to you and they punch you after you respond to them, you should be able to kill them. That's going to be a dangerous president. And you know why that's going to be a dangerous president? Let me tell you why. Because you have a lot of people who are running around all over social media, all over America, all over the world who are saying, "You hurt my feelings. I was offended." And since I was offended, I was assaulted because your language was assaultive and it offended me and my feelings was hurt. So I feel that you, this is again, I feel that you were using this language to cause harm to me.
So now if that person assaults you and then you defend yourself, they can shoot you or you can shoot them.
It would change the entire game.
All right. So, I want to put a pause right there for all of you that are watching on the vertical stream. You're about to be switched over to the horizontal stream because I'm opening the panel as uh once again. Um, as you come up, please make sure you be on camera. It's greatly appreciated. So, again, if you want to join the link, it is going to be right then and there. For everyone that is on vertical stream, you're about to be sent over to the horizontal stream. As y'all come up, please have your arguments prepared and make and if you can be on camera, it would be preferred if you're on camera.
Y'all about to be transitioned over to the horizontal stream. We will see y'all over on the horizontal stream.
Bet.
All right. For all of you that are still here in the horizontal stream, please put a one in the chat is greatly appreciated. Let me make sure that y'all still here.
Uh, and make sure y'all still here.
We should still be running in a horizontal stream.
We should be, you know, you never know these days.
Let me see. All right, cool. So, we still here. All right, cool. Bet, bet, bet. All right, cool. So, we still here.
We got 32 people in the chat. That lets me know that a lot of people was coming in from the vertical stream. But again, the link is pinned if y'all want to join. Let me make sure the link is actually pinned. Uh, hold on.
Let me remove this one. Remove this.
Just remove it. We're going to shut this one down. We're going to remove this.
We're going to save that. And then we're also going to shut down. For those of you that's watching on Facebook, I appreciate y'all coming back. But we're going to go ahead and shut that down on Facebook as well. Deuces, y'all. All right, cool. Now that we are on the horizontal side of the game, once again, like I said, the StreamYard link is pinned.
And also, I'm going to go ahead and drop the link here as well. Let me go ahead and drop the link.
Drop.
Drop and drop. All right, cool.
Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Uh, I heard I heard the man that was shot was a s offender. Has anyone else heard or seen proof of that? I do not know if that is true, Britney. I do not know. Kale says act not built like that. He got hit before he didn't do nothing and he's all talk. Yeah, I seen that video when got hit. It was uh pretty devastating when that got hit. I saw that.
[ __ ] I ain't even realized I was on mute until y'all come up. I'm going to go ahead and continue this video for a little bit more. back again. I asked you earlier if a woman gets punched, does she have the justification to use deadly force? You said it depends. So the fact that you conceded and you said it depends.
>> The circumstances we talked we talked about already has you can't compare to a >> you can't compare to war.
>> I'm not that's not my point. I I'll real quick I'll I'll go through this. First you said cuz your argument is this. Let me make sure I have this right. A punch does not justify deadly force. Fair.
That's your position. Okay. Then I asked you also Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee statue also said say that if you were the antagonist it does not you cannot use self-defense. That is also true. So there's many things going against them.
>> Hold on. Okay. Let's go through this again. Your position is one punch does not justify deadly force. Fair.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Then I asked you if the dude punched a girl that's 5'1 100 lb. Does that count to does that justify her using deadly force? You said it depends.
Beautiful. That proves. So the fact that you conceded on that means I'm right.
Okay, let me explain why. You're saying one punch doesn't just >> right with a 5% possibility. It's like if I told you if you could jump off this building, you have 5% chance of surviving. It's unlikely possible. Yes.
Is it probable? No.
>> Okay. I'm not saying that to to say, oh, the is going to shoot. I'm showing it to illustrate that reasonleness based on the person that's using the force is the only >> Hey, shout out to uh to Mitchell.
Appreciate you for the $5 cash app, big homie. Thank you very much.
>> That matters. So again, me and you can't sit here, right, a Monday morning quarterback and be like, "Oh, he put some percentage. We we hold on. You got to look at that percentage is very low."
Like, like again, no, I I got to talk to you in broad terms. Listen, if if we had to get and you've seen many of these incidents, 100 incidents that you think a fist fight actually would um it would actually prove that it was warranted to use a gun. If there was a hundred fist fights, how many do you think would be like, "Oh, okay. It made sense for him to use a gun or no, legally he was right to use a gun." It would be probably very few and far in between. So for you arguing this for It's like, "Huh?" You know, it's like arguing like, "Yeah, of course, if I go to the casino and gambling there's a 2% chance I win, but most time lose." No, that that is yes, with self-defense, you are completely right. However, when you try to apply the Well, you know, if it was a be a little bit different. It's not a war. is use the variables that actually exist.
And even if you don't want to use past variables, let's just be honest, which jury if you think you could seat a jury that's going to say, "Hey, he got punched once. He's very within his right to shoot that guy and try to kill him."
You come on, bro. Really?
>> Okay. Who provoked this?
>> Is there a possibility? Yes.
>> Who provoked this altercation?
>> Um, I'm still going with >> Who closed the distance?
>> If if that's what you want to call the provocation, I think I think it was provoked the the moment he approached the guys. They don't want to talk to him. They didn't approach him. They're not like, you know, hey, they're minding their business. Even if they're laughing at you, you try to have a conversation with them that they're not willing to do. Hey, we don't want to talk to you.
I'm good. We're good.
>> Okay. Okay. Then he disengaged, right?
>> That I'm not too sure about, but I'll go with the story.
>> So, he disengaged. This is what the people that actually saw the stream said. Eyewitnesses, several. He walked away.
>> This is Does that mean violence? Does that mean threats? Even if they like, "Hey, I'm just walking over you." Hey, what' you say again? Is that a threat?
act. Let's just be honest, bro. This dude, let me be explicit. This dude was the provoker. He walked up to he antagonized but has no duty to No, but he didn't he didn't he didn't provoke he didn't say anything. He said, "Hey, how you guys doing today?" Then they say, "Hey, get out of here. You you can't be walking around here. Get the [ __ ] out of here." And he walks away. He was mate.
Your words is prov like you're provoking me with your words. I know who you are.
I'm the mere fact you even initiated this conversation. I again remember we're also talking self-defense here.
How do we can we objectively find out what's provoking? Is provoking walking up to? Is provoking talking to?
>> He he didn't he didn't provoke them. He went up and said hello. They told him get out of here. He walked away and then the guy came after him.
>> Don't you think they might have found that provoking if they're saying as soon as they say he says hello. Yo, leave.
Please stop. Get away from us.
>> No, because saying hello to someone is not provoking. And then you tell them get out of here and they walk away. Like bro, like that's insane. Like that is set an insane standard if we could walk around and say, "Oh, saying hello is a provocation." Dude, it's not like the guy the guy closed the gap on. He said, "Call me for a then closing." He followed him. When I say he closed the gap, he followed him act. He literally followed him. He followed him and said, "If you say that to me about do that, I got PTSD." Says, "Oh, >> if we also follow, let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. He walks up to him. He says that then says, "Oh, or what? You going to chip out?" Then he sucks. He punched him once. Now, let's address the second argument. You said that one punch can't constitute as for to justify deadly force. But then I asked you, "Well, if a gets hit like that, can she use deadly force?" You said, "It depends." Beautiful. That's my trap for you. No, you got to let me finish. You got to let me finish. You got to let me finish.
>> No, because you do this argument with the girls that come on your stream. If like when the girls come on after hours and they be like I know this one guy his relationship you know what you say to them we're talking generality about it's not about the I'm saying that to illustrate >> that's why I asked you on a um if we're talking about probabilities how many times in how many cases have you ever seen it ever been justified that a punch equals is justified as I'm a gunshot on a range of PROBABILITIES PROBABLY LIKE 5% or less. So that's what I'm saying like when you're saying well remember if it was a you're changing up the you're changing up all the variables to try to create this particular thing where it's probably switching the variable I'm switching the variable to show that your logic doesn't doesn't apply again please let me finish bro I let you finish my switch variables >> act let me finish please cuz you're not letting me finish so I can bring this all together you said a punch doesn't justify lethal force I said fine then I brought you know what Let's say it's a man with a pacemaker.
Fool. Let's say it's a dude with a pacemaker. He can't really take >> things 1%.
>> It's not about It's It's not about the one%.
>> Go ahead.
>> Let's say he has a pacemaker, right? If he gets hit with anything, the pacemaker can stop, right? You might say, "Does he have a uh a justified um use of deadly force?" Right? Because he could potentially get punched and his pacemaker go down. Would you would it be fair to say he can use deadly force after a punch?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Pacemaker.
>> Here's the thing. Here's the thing. I didn't ask you that to see does he have a pacemaker. I'm trying to illustrate that you just use the metric I've been talking about. Is it reasonable? And that reasonleness hold that reasonleness act. This is so important. Please, bro, if you hear anything out from me, hear this. That reasonable standard shifts based on the person that used the force.
Someone who's 6' 3", 250 lbs might not be able to justify lethal force after a punch. where someone who has a pacemaker, a man can justify it or a woman who's 5'1. So what I'm trying to illustrate is the principle that reasonleness is what dictates if the shooting was good. Neither me nor you are in a position to say if was justified and it was reasonable because we don't know the facts at the time he pulled a gun. He could have seen a knife. He could have heard his buddy saying kill that. He could have felt as though guy was trying to reach for his gun. There's so many different factors act that me and you don't know that are critical to their reasonleness. This is why self-defense cases almost always go to the stand. Why did Kyle Writtenhouse testify? He testified because only he can describe in excruciating detail precisely what was going through his mind as that guy came up with the skateboard and he decided to pull the finger on that AK-47 and kill him. Only he can do.
>> First of all, it wasn't a Myin, stop.
First of all, it wasn't even an AK-47.
It was an AR-15.
the reason why Kyle Writtenhouse got called to the stand. And for all of you who love legal precedences and who love watching trials, I was a moderator for a very big channel during that stream or during that trial. The reason why Kyle Writtenhouse Yeah. When he said AK-47, I'm like, "Wait, what? Huh?" It was a AR-15. The reason that Kyle Writtenhouse got called to the stand is because as a defense lawyer, and I'm I'mma test y'all knowledge for a second or I'mma test y'all y'all y'all perception. As a defense lawyer, you have a young man who's being strong throughout the world as being known for shooting black people. You have a lot of these people.
You have the prosecutor, you got social media, you got the news, TMZ, you got all of these big corporations.
Everyone's weighing in. Hell, you even had the president of the United States of America and the damn even in politics they was talking about this. No one has heard from him.
The best possible way to get his side of the story is to do what? Put him on the stand.
Let him rep. Let let him give his side.
Let him tell it in his words. That's why he got put on the stand. And also on top of that, because the prosecutor, let's just be honest, was doing a lot of faulty things throughout that trial, putting Kyle Written House on the stand was the best possible move that you could have made >> that. So, the point I'm trying to make is reasonableness on the person using self-defense is what matters. Me and your opinion is irrelevant. I'm giving I'm not sitting here saying innocent.
But what I am saying is that based on the facts and circumstances, his reasonableness is going to be based on things that me and you don't know about.
>> Yeah. Um, but here's the thing though.
If we're going on, you know, just if we're going on >> Oh, by the way, since we're since we're doing this since we're not doing this vertically anymore, I can shift to this.
There we go.
Hold on. There we go. Since we not doing this vertical anymore, I could shift to this. There we go.
>> Probability just based on anything that you might know currently and cooked, right? Like no, it's it's cool saying he has a 5% chance. Like of course like if he has like, yo, if you punch me in this corner of my mouth, my doctor done told me I'm going to pass out. I have a gun.
He might kill me, so I shot him. Cool.
That might be a really great defense.
From what we know, this is a 6'3 white guy who looks like he got a little bit weight to him. It doesn't look like that. If you get punched by a random civilian, you could use your gun. That's what I'm trying to establish. OF COURSE, HE MIGHT HAVE SOME LOOPHOLE. It's fine.
I'm not saying he can't. What I'm saying is that let's not acknowledge that he did the right thing for the majority of people that are going to be in his position. He did the wrong thing. He should have squabbled up. BUT BUT BECAUSE HE SHOT the guy, he's going to have to rely on one of these kooky that you described. Hey, he has a pacemaker.
Hey, you never know. Maybe he thought he was like a girl and he can't deal with a punch. Cool. Maybe that works. But the reality of it is that this isn't open and shut. For example, you know what's open and shut? We don't got to go to 10 or 5%.
>> Ahmad Arbory makes a very good case. I mean, Ahmad Arbery, Curtis Baldwin makes a very good case. Ahmad Arby's murderers got life. Absolutely they did. And they were the antagonizers.
>> Hey, the guy says, "Yo, you man, I" And he reaches I've been trying to get up with you. Pulls out, shoots him. That's going to be easy. That's a 90% chance you're getting off. What you're mentioning is that the guy couldn't take a punch, so he shot. Yeah, he's going to spend Hey, shout out to my man Hey, shout out to my man's Matt. Thank you for the $20 cash app. Greatly appreciate you, big homie. If y'all want to support the stream, y'all know we not we not monetized over here no more. So, y'all can do it by way of the cash app. It is dollar sign s L Y O L I G HT. Appreciate you, big homie.
>> Maybe millions in legal fees and probably still go to jail. Act. What I'm telling you is that we don't know how many times he got punched. Okay. He got punched one time and the camera fell and you can hear them struggling. We don't know if he got act again. Again. One partner saying you don't know, but you're certain that you know other parts. You're like, I know.
>> Uh, really quick. Tony in the back. Give me a thumbs up. Big homie.
Can you hear me in the back? All right.
Hold up, y'all. Hold on.
All right. Tony, you on the stream?
What's going on?
Tony, you there?
Uh, Tony, I don't know if you can hear me or not, but you might want to try to get your microphone together. Go out and come back in.
>> I KNOW THE GUY APPROACHED HIM. MAYBE WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER. WHAT I'M SAYING IS that we're assuming that was on video, act, I know that cuz it was on video. I haven't seen that. Have you seen I TELL YOU, BRO? YO, THERE'S VIDEO of this man. He literally was video of a guy walking up to him.
>> Yes. Yes. The police are trying to SUBPOENA IT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING ALL this act. Yo, the dude closed the distance on him, bro. And then he punched him. And again, I know >> the whole alter like the the whole, you know, precursor to the altercation.
>> It shows everything before the altercation. And then on top of that, after he punches him, the camera falls to the floor. So you don't see what happens. You just hear struggling for a few seconds. Then >> you there shots go off. That's important. You could play it.
>> I don't have it. Pump Fun. I'll tell you why. Pump Fund deleted it because it heard gunshots, they have automatic AI where if gunshots are heard on a stream, it shuts it down. Like they have some type of >> having info on if no one seen it.
>> What was that?
>> Wait, how do we have the info on it if like >> several people live several people in my community saw the live stream. That's why that's how I know they watched it.
They were there watching it live as he would as this all happened and then once the the shots went off, the stream ended and Pump Fun took it off. Well, again, I would still disagree with that just based off the the arrest warrant. Like, what they're saying in the arrest warrant is that this guy is basically automatically on a I am going to inflict damage. Some people might say defensive, the blade of stance or whatever, he's reaching for something and and I'm not going to lie, if if if I put this in a vacuum, if I'm standing in front of someone, I say I have the knowledge that this guy claims he's always armed and we're getting into it. Yo, say this. Yo, yo, I'm triggered by this. CC what's going on my G. So what I want to do is I'll do this right.
I'll do this. Let me bring this video over.
So this is audio from I guess after all of this was happening.
>> Walked past him. He was sitting on the corner. I walked up to him because they they're pointing at me.
>> They're laughing. They're pointing at me and I said, "What's up, guys? How y'all doing?"
>> I said, "Y'all like the you like the new suit?" He said, "Walk away from me." I walked away from him. He came back up to me.
>> Yeah, I got your I got your cash at Brain. I appreciate you, big homie.
He He literally said, "I have PTSD. I feel like I'm in." He said, "You start saying all that chimp out [ __ ] to me, I'mma hit you." He hit me, started wailing on me. Even after I had to defend myself by shooting him, he's still wailing on me.
>> Where's your weapon at?
>> They have everything. What weapon is that right there? I believe that's >> Is that yours?
>> I imagine he's talking to them right now.
>> Oh, no. You guys are going to do your thing.
>> Okay.
>> He has a grace. I call it a graze to the left arm.
>> He has slight abrasion right here on his head. Maybe two scrapes. Slight light headed.
>> All right. So, that's that. Uh, do you want my black opinion or my white opinion on this matter? Whichever opinion that you have, big homie, you're more than welcome to share it. Let's continue with this >> this. If you say I'M GOING CRASH OUT AND all of a sudden he's in a bladed stance and I see him going for this and I don't have a weapon, I'm either going to run away, be like, "Whoa, you got it." Or if if if I'm that bold, I'm I'm trying to make sure you don't get to the weapon.
So that in >> I don't think that backs him up.
>> Okay. Let's let's assume that the the dude sees Let's use your scenario. You still come at them when they said, "Back up. I got a gun." Wouldn't it be fair to say that if they still strike you after you give them that warning that they're trying to probably cause serious bodily injury cuz they know the risk of grabbing a gun too. I don't know if he's warning him. And that's where I think this guy not being dead is going to come back and haunt him because you know why?
When that guy gets on the stand as a victim who's alive and breathing and says, "Hey, what when somebody paid for his bond? Oh, so he getting out." Wait a minute.
Hold up.
I don't see any word that that his bond got paid for. He says he warned me and and and and and provocation is going to then turn into a very who do you believe? He said she said it's going to get racial now, right? Because the guy is going to say, "Hey, I didn't provoke him. He provoked me." And I'm pretty sure Dalton is going to say, "No, he provoked me and he wouldn't walk away."
>> Yeah. Okay. The video disproves it and it shows that the guy walked up to him and again after he punched uh the camera fell and we don't know what happened.
You could just hear struggling then shots fired. So, it wasn't one punch.
>> But from the video, could we could we see can we see if um he has a gun in his hand at that point?
>> Cuz he punched them. He punched them and the camera fell and then you hear them struggling on the side. So, so there's a possibility that maybe he he only got punched after Dalton grabbed might be pepper spray, but he grabbed something and which I think is perfectly normal.
There's some people that there there's fight and flight, but there's some people that's not >> Oh [ __ ] Well, I guess it is true.
The internet is losing it after duel pays Chud the Builder's bail. Holy [ __ ] That's just for his bail. dude will go back to court and be found guilty. Oh, okay. So, I guess his bail did get paid.
Well, damn.
>> Well, we gonna see what's going to happen from there.
All right.
>> Flight. Hey, you go grab for that weapon. You're getting one of these to the face.
>> Sure. But guess what? He closed the distance. So, he has no self-defense case. That's the point. He has no He came up to He came up to Jud lost. No self-defense on his side.
>> That's not right, Myin. Because that was even brought up in the George Zimmerman case. Wait, wait, but you're also you're also that's where you're starting altercation at. I'm starting altercation at the conversation >> when he said hello.
>> Uh yeah, if I would say I I don't know exactly what he said, but you approaching the guys at first started all >> they pointed and laughed at him then he came over to say hello. Then they said get out of here or whatever. He leaves.
All right. Come on, man. If you really think high counts as provocation, let's What are we doing here, bro? Come on, man. Give more credit than that.
The real provocation started where the moment he said I'm going to be honest with you. The moment he said, "Oh, or what? You're going to out?" I'm going to be honest with you. I think that dude socked him out with with one of them ancestor punches. It came from Martin Luther King all the way to Marcus Garvey and Rosa Parks. He had to do it, bro. I can't again. So, so he provoked it then.
He started holding it then.
Dton should have realized. Dalton should have realized. Listen, you're not only provoking a person, you're provoking an entire race of people. Bro, your rhetoric and you >> act. No. Bad argument to make. No, it's not. You can't use that. You can't use that argument in this situation. No.
>> You could have avoided it. Act. None of that has to do with this use of force situation, BRO. YOU YOU OVER HERE talking about MLK, bro. None of that has to do with this case. I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS RIGHT TO punch him, but I understand if Malcolm was like, "Yo, man, knock this this bum out. Bum out." Now, after he hits you once, if you ch That's true.
I mean, CC CDs, that's true. When this falls to the jury, they will see Ch's internet personality and messages he wrote. Absolutely they will. It speaks to character.
>> You want to go with your 3% like, "Oh, okay. But what about if he had a pacemaker? He could have been a girl. He can't handle a punch." if that's what you want to go with. By the way, if Dalton had beat him down, you know what I would have said? I promise you. I would have said, "Yo, yo, y'all dudes pulling up on Dalton better know how to squabble cuz he yo, he's put you know, you know how crazy would have been if he beat that, but no, he's a he pulled out his gun. He tried to shoot the guy and kill him." And here's the thing. I don't have a problem with you using your weapon cuz I have my weapon. If I need to use it, I want to be able to use it.
But don't use it because you're antagonizing and can't fight. You're too scared to fight. You're scared of anything physical and you think that the threat of this thing on your hip is going to protect people from punching you square in the mouth. That's where he had it wrong. Okay. Up with this guy and if the guy reached for a gun, I promise you I wouldn't be I'll be like, "Yo, yeah, that guy should have reached for a gun. They know how Dalton get down.
Dalton murdered him, left his brain on the pavement." I wouldn't like it. But I'd be like, "Yo, it is what it is." The guy never pulled a gun. Dalton is a entire He pulled his gun and because he can't handle one of these. I'm telling you, it was like a >> act again.
>> Like, we got to Okay, bro. I know you're trolling now at this point, bro. Yo, you're trolling. You're on the henny right now, bro. But, bro, talking about Martin Luther King and a bunch of like that. Yo, act. Come on, man. Let's be serious. In this case, these facts and circumstances basically. Yo, are you saying people can't have accountability, bro? If you say chip out, they're they're going to hit you. Like, come on, bro. Like, you're perpetuating the stereotypes of everybody says, bro, oh, are you going to punches them? Like, bro, this is why people are tired of [ __ ] bro. May yo what's going on my >> got to keep it a thousand. This is why people are tired of blacks. Like they can't even take accountability. Imagine a world where saying hey you got to jump out is fighting words that justify all punched. What >> mind? I'm going to tell you what world that is. The world is every time I've watched Sneo. He's like everybody hold hands. Let's come together. Let's pray to Allah this and third. And then I looked over they put his face on a bomb.
Okay. So in in in in in the real world, I haven't seen Stinko done nothing to nobody, but they'll put his face on a bomb and drop it on a city. That's way less than some guy saying a word than getting punched in the face. Yes, when you have words, even if it's not violent, other people meet those words.
If they feel what you're saying is violent or disrespectful or offensive, they meet that with violence. Okay? It's not people because let me ask you a question. Do you think what that guy did to to Ch I didn't know was putting Sneo's name on bombs? What do you think is worse? So, so, so when you say that only people do that, it look like other PEOPLE DO IT, TOO.
>> All right. Act.
>> I think I could Google it. They put Sneo's name on a bomb. And Sneo has never I've never seen him physically harm anybody. That's But you know why?
He got the rhetoric that they don't like. It's offensive to them. And in their response to that offense is not by saying, "You know what? WE'RE MATURE.
THEY'RE >> YEAH, but I don't understand the argument that ACT is making here. They put Sneo's name on the bomb. Sneo didn't ask him to put their name his name on a bomb.
Okay.
>> You're saying put his name on a bomb and let's go kill some people. That's true, right?
>> Act. They put my name on a bomb, too.
>> They think the same about you. That's what I'm saying. So, what I'm saying is that you're saying it's only people that are triggered to violence. But what about the people that you have >> What up though?
>> Rhetoric that don't go along with them.
They put y'all names on bombs and inflict violence with it. It's not just people. It's everybody when it comes to offense. People just think that people are and they should not be able to do anything when they're offended.
I hate that actor is making this argument. You know why? Because what you're doing is you're justifying people's actions based on how they feel.
You know why I'm bringing this up?
Because Charlie Kirk was assassinated based on how people felt.
Mayo says so writing a name on the bomb is violence according to act I don't know but hearing hearing as to all of the what the people are saying online they feel that Charlie Kirk was justified justifiably assassinated based on how they felt but when you offend people your name is an Obama >> okay so let me just be let me okay let me get this straight are you comparing a self-defense case to a geopolitical cat quagmire in the Middle East >> it doesn't start off as a self-defense case. It starts off as one man trying to have racial division. One man who's trying to a whole different race to this.
>> YES.
>> HOLD ON. WAIT. HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING.
Sneo is a irrelevant commentator. Why they putting his his name on a bomb?
Just like how Just like how um is an irrelevant streamer. But you know why?
Their rhetoric matters that much to the offended people that your name is on a bomb. This guy's rhetoric is matters that much. That's why you're getting punched in the mouth. Yes, it's the same thing. I GET IT. YOU WANT TO say this thing overseas is bigger. Granted, I get it. I get it. Just boils down to one self-defense case in this situation. But the point is this. If you picked any group of people that have any self-ride and you pick on them and you target them with racial epotus, if you target them with with slurs and you try to offend and oppress them, especially using language, at some point they're going to slap you in your face, punch in your mouth. Academics, you're making the case as to why it is that the woman hit you. You're also making the case to why it is that a lot of women online behave the way that they do. But you're also making a case as to why a lot of men online behave the way that they do. So based on how people feel, should violence be an influence or put a bullet in your forehead? Ask Charlie Kirk.
>> Okay. Again, um you're comparing self-defense in America to Palestine, which is those two things. Okay. That is not analogous. What? Those two things are not analogous whatsoever. Like defending yourself defending yourself >> that's a fact she dending yourself in a fight is not the same as a 100 plus year war thing it's the offense it's the offense because sneakers never fought here's what I'm saying if people if if >> what does it have to do with self-defense though >> here what I'm saying no here what I'm saying I'm not justifying why somebody hunched but it's a reason why you you said you said people that's it like are they not mature enough to not do that.
And I said, every race or group of people when they get enough disrespect, they react violently.
Like I guarantee even your people of Sudan, if the disrespect either from neighboring countries or whoever they've, you know, been into it with got to a certain level, violence would occur. So I'm not defending violence, but to act, and this is Nico's point, act like, oh, >> you're justifying it. You're not defending it. You're justifi >> Hey, I I'm not agreeing with my but what I'm saying is you are justifying your act. You're saying that just because if people reach a boiling point that they're going to do some things and that the reason that they do the things, the result is going to be whatever happens and it's okay.
That's not right. Random Independence says, "Why are we watching two bombs debate?"
Because it's content. ifying it. And that's my point.
>> No, it's not justifying it. It's understand the realities of the world, right? The realities of why Sneo says, "Hey, well, listen. Why is the FBI publishing this manifesto of the San Diego shooter?" Well, well, didn't you also say that shouldn't mean nothing?
So, who cares about the argument again? you know, act I'm trying to be very um patient on this and just keep look we are talking we are we are debating self-defense in a specific case based around a specific individual in a specific case with a specific pattern of facts. We are not talking about Palestine. That is completely not analogous to the situation. You're >> Oh, also random independent.
You said bums debate. You know what channel you be on?
>> Argument is if you talk about a people that have been oppressed, hold on. Your argument, let me make sure I have this correct. You're saying if you talk about a group of people who have been oppressed, you deserve to get assaulted.
Is that your position?
>> No. I said at some point you're going to run into someone who will assault you.
>> Fair. Fair. That person that assaults you, shouldn't they go to jail?
>> Uh, depend on what disrespect you're doing AND HOW >> NO. NO. STOP. NO. NO. And again, AK is walking into a trap on this. And the reason why he is because a simple thing, just because I offended you does not give you a right to assault me. I think everybody I think everybody can agree with that. If I offend you, that'll give you a right to an assault me. That's not how that works.
And also, I'm going to defend myself if and when you assault me. By the way, y'all, y'all know the link is pinned if y'all want to join, if y'all want to join. But random independent, we're talking about the the the compar we're comparing the contrast between the Carmelo Anthony case and the Chud the Builder case.
>> Myin feeding into it.
>> He didn't disrespect them. Hold on. He didn't disrespect them though. He didn't respect disrespect them though. He walked away. He walked away.
>> Yo, for example, if this guy was just online, there's another guy.
>> No, no, no. Hold on, hold on, hold on.
We No, no, no. Hold on.
>> No, no, no. We're going to get into that. We're going to get that. No, >> bro. He didn't provoke this guy.
>> Wait, wait, wait. No, no, Mario. We're going to get into that. What I'm trying to say is that >> No, you can't grandstand and then not deal with what you said. If Chud the Builder walked up to these people and he said, "Hey, I want to have a conversation." They said they don't want to have a conversation and he walked away and the guy followed behind Chud.
What are you saying?
>> There's another guy. He even follow on Aiden's brand risk event. He's not outside provoking black people. He stays in his room. He gets on. He might he says that he says whatever like you know people don't like right but the there isn't like there isn't this guy who's now provoking maybe a possible physical altercation because he understands the more you say that you keep stepping outside and doing it in people's faces.
Yes. By the way, I've always said the person who's going to do something to this guy, they're going to acknowledge that they're getting an assault charge.
Of course. Yes. They're going to >> Hey, what up though?
>> What's up, man? What's up? How's your evening going?
>> I'm going good. What's going on?
>> Not much. Just ate some burgers.
>> What you got about this whole thing?
>> Man, the Carmelo situation. I know his trial is in like June or something if I'm not mistaken. It's coming up actually.
>> Yeah, it'll be damn near in June. That's crazy. Um >> but uh yeah, I didn't think his his situation was self-defense from what I remember of it. I remember, you know, being on that quoteunquote other channel, as you put it, uh, talking about it with people and most people didn't didn't really agree with me. I don't think his situation was self-defense. Everything I've heard about this Ch situation seems like it also wasn't self-defense.
So, I don't see I know I don't know. I guess there's like a big overlap between those that say Carmelo's situation was self-defense and Chuds wasn't. Yeah, that and um the they they're comparing the fact that >> Chud's bond is a million dollars. It was 1.25 million got reduced down to a million and Carmelo's bond was uh a million dollars and got reduced down to $250,000.
>> And Carmelo actually took someone's life and Chud didn't. Chud just shot somebody. He killed somebody. Mhm.
>> So now there's, of course, you know, there's going to be a racial divide between the people to where they're saying like, "Hey, why is it that because he's white, let's just be honest, that's that's the the argument that they're making.
>> Let's just be honest. Because he's white, y'all keeping him in jail." But when the black kid did it, y'all let him out of jail because he's black >> and all the nuances that come with it.
You see what I'm saying?
>> Yeah. I I I had I was just talking to someone actually um uh yesterday, the day before. someone was saying that that same talking point about oh you know why is his and it's like well when you look at Carmelo's situation it was a oneoff right you know it was like whether because I don't think it was self-defense so I think he's charged right and rightly so um but that's completely separate to whether he should be granted bail at a lower cost to a dude who's made a living antagonizing people and that path or that uh you know that path or that activity or whatever you want to call it got him in the position he's in.
And so, of course, the judge is going to be like, "No, it's not going to be a low bail because there's more than like we I believe that there's a more than likely chance that you go out and do this stuff again cuz this is what you do and this is how you got in this situation." So, um, and you're a flight risk.
>> Well, and see, that's the argument that's being made, right? So, I'm more so brought it to the front. I brought it to the front because of this. Because if the standard is going to be acceptable for one, it should be acceptable for all. But we all understand that that's not how the law works. But the precedent that is going to set is this is that Chud walked up to this group of people who was I guess making fun of him or pointing at him or laughing, whatever.
And he said to them a few words and they said, "Hey, don't talk to me. We don't want to talk to you." So he walks away and this guy follows him and says, "Hey, by the way, don't be coming at me with that chimp [ __ ] because I got PTSD and that makes me snap out." And Chud says, "Well, what are you going to snap out?
You going to chimp out?" And the guy punches him.
His bond should not be at a million dollars for some people in the Carmelo Anthony situation. He was up under a tent. They told him to move. He said, "I'm not moving." I guess they go to move him. He says, "Touch me and find out." They touch him. He end up stabbing him and kill him. The problem is is that I don't know if you heard this part yet, but now I guess the judge said that he can't I'm talking about Chud the Builder. He can't have access to the money that's been raised on uh GoFundMe or Gim and Go because um that's outsourced money. He can't use that to defend himself. But for all this time for Carmelo Anthony, they have been fighting teething back and forth saying that he should be able to use the money that's raised in his defense for his case. M but a lot of people forget even in Kyle Writtenhouse's situation there was money raised for his case could they use it? So it's more so just drawing a distinct difference as to why it is that you know just because it's race or skin color or creed people feel the way they do about these cases instead of just actually looking at the case for what it is.
>> You know what I'm saying?
>> I feel you.
>> Yeah. And even in this debate, Myin of course is defending Chud the Builder and A is not defending Chud the Builder.
He's more so just calling out the nuances. But the problem is when it comes to social media just because you're black, we have you you've seen it. You've been involved in these conversations. Carmelo's black, so he's innocent just because he's black. Well, Chud's in he's guilty just because he's white. Wait, what?
>> But we always talking about systemic racism. So, if it was if it was systemically racist for Carmelo's bail to be so high, isn't it racist for Ch's bail to be high, too?
>> Are you asking me or you playing devil's advocate?
>> Yeah, I'm I'm asking.
>> Um, not necessarily. Um, especially, you know, I don't know where Chess I don't really know too much about Chess situation. Um, just from what I've heard, it doesn't sound like self-defense. Um, but, uh, I don't know what state it was in. What state was it in?
Uh, I have to look and see. I have to look.
>> Not a huge deal. I was just going to say, you know, depending on the state, you know, depending on the like systemic racism can still exist just because, you know, a black youth somewhere is treated fairly or in a different way than what might be anticipated or expected. Um, and a white dude is treated a different way or whatever the case may be, doesn't mean that systemic racism can't still exist.
>> It was in Nashville, Tennessee. That's where it was at.
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right. So, Tennessee and Texas, completely different justice systems, completely like you can based off a city, you're going to have completely different DAs, completely different judges, um depending on where where it's going and whatnot. Uh so, yeah, like some city might be more liberal or less systemic racist or not systemically racist at all compared to another city. So, I you know, cross comparing them like that, I don't think is is a good idea. I I don't know enough information about either of the case cases to really, you know, put, you know, put a stamp on anything. But >> right now, I'm going tell you what triggered this. Right. I was scrolling through Facebook and I seen a post and the post was is that um people, black people were celebrating the fact that Chud's bond has not been reduced. Yet, these same black people were crying vehematly and it was causing an uprising all across social media. saying that it was wrong for Carmelo. Now, me and you, I on the same thinking patterns, two different places, two different uh court systems, all this that and the other.
The problem is this though, when it comes down to it, socially, on a social level, you can't say that it's racist for one and it's not for the other if they both have similar circumstances.
The only the only difference between these two instances that one is dead and one is alive. I'm talking about the the victim in the case. Well, what what is the So, what is the purpose of bail?
>> Good question. What is it?
>> Based off what do you think it is or what do you feel it is?
>> What do I think bail is?
>> Yeah. Like, what is the purpose of bail?
>> To be honest with you, I've never seen bail as a good opportunity for anybody. But I understand that bail is what you pay to the state so you can have an opportunity to be able to fight your case on the outside that you don't want have to be stuck in the inside.
So the reason bail from someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the main thing about bail is if someone is a flight risk they get their bail revoked because it's really just there to ensure you show up to court and you have like some secondary factors like are they a threat to society and stuff like that but I think the main purpose of bail is just to ensure people show up to court and then the other stuff comes in where it can get restricted and um you know uh the cost of bail or the you know price of bail whatever you want to say it bail set higher limit and whatnot is because of the threats to the society or the other types of things. So, you know, Carmelo again, it was a one-off situation. He doesn't have a he doesn't have a historical pattern of doing what he did or, you know, a stage of goal of continuing doing that or that's how he makes a living or anything like that. So to say like they're the same and maybe I'm confusing or misunderstanding what you're saying, but they're not even close to >> just because they're both same in self-defense or they're a situation where violent a violent act occurred doesn't make them the same or close to the same.
>> Cool. Let me let me let me step into what you said. So bail is for if you're a flight risk. Who would you consider more of a fight a flight risk? Someone that shoots someone or someone that kills someone?
>> I don't think either one of those matters on flight risk. I think whoever has the I think whoever has more money um is generally gonna be considered a higher higher chance of a flight risk.
>> So the more money you have, let me let me look this up because I really want to know one second.
Bail light risk.
All right.
There's there's probably a um a uh a rule that they follow where like a six-part rule or three-part rule where a judge is supposed to um follow to decide whether someone's a flight risk or whatever.
>> Gotcha. You're right. The point of bail is to ensure Oh, let me uh make this big screen. The point of bail is to ensure defendant returns for their required court dates while allowing them to remain free before and during the trial.
It acts as a financial collateral. If the defendant attends all hearings, the money is returned. But if they flee, the money and or property is forfeited.
Here's a breakdown of how it works.
Insuring court attendance requiring a financial deposit or promise to pay provides a strong incentive for defendants to face their charges rather than fleeing. Protecting the presumption of innocence because their trial can take months to schedule. Bail allows individuals to maintain their jobs, support their families, and actively assist in their own legal defense while remaining presumed innocent, preventing pre-trial punishment. The eth amendment of the United States Constitution requires that bail not be used as punitive fine or set excessive amounts.
Release of recon uh release of reconc.
The judge releases the defendant without requiring any money relying solely on their written promise to appear in court. Cash bail. The defendant or their family deposit the full bail amount of the court with the court which is refunded at the end of the case. Shy bail. Shy bond. If the bail is too high to pay out the pocket, defendants often use a bail's bondsman. The bondsman pays the court but charges the defendant a non-refundable fee, typically 10% for service. All right, cool. So, when it comes down to it, bail, not bail, but the flight risk aspect, I need to know um is that something that has to be considered per state or per court, or is that just a choice? It's by the judge.
>> It's by the judge. So the judge determines if you the judge determines if you a fight risk or not.
>> There's most likely a lot of times like there's case law and through case law things are passed down like a judge above you is going to say if you're going to be doing this then you need to take these things into account and that is how you're going to determine something. And so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something like or it could even be legislated like here are the three points you need to consider when thinking about flight risk. Is there a pattern of history? Is there history of them doing certain things? What is their life outside of these of the specific incidents? Are they working or are they doing criminal acts? X Y and Z. So, there's probably a bunch of stuff that's considered, >> right? So, even with that, because I'm reading through here, uh, how does a judge determine flight risk? Uh, some examples are community ties, strong family relationships, property ownership, deep roots in the local area indicate a lower likelihood of fleeing, steady employment, or history of paying taxes provide stability and incentive to stay. severity of the charges, more serious offenses, especially those carrying lengthy potential prison sentences. My bad, I don't have this blown up. Um, previous convictions, passages of of failing to appear in court, or active warrants, weigh heavily against a defendant, financial resources, access to significant liquid cash, offshore accounts, or international travel documents gives a defendant the means to escape. So, even in that instance, I still don't, the prosecution uh usually brings that up at the bail hearing. So my thing is this though, you can say that uh that Chud is a flight risk because he has access to more money. He's a streamer more he's older more than likely he has a job. He has his own money. He has uh his passport. All this that and the other.
When it comes out to Clo Anthony, I say he's a flight risk because uh he killed someone and that he does not need to be free to go out and kill again. But if they can pay that that high ass bond, then fine, sure. But still make him a flight risk because of the fact that he killed someone. Anyone that that took someone's life and they have to go to court about it, they are a flight risk.
But shooting someone should can you be a flight risk, too? Sure, you could be a flight risk, too. But even in that even in that instance, if you're going to say that Carmelo isn't a flight risk, even though I understand that this isn't a different state, different court, when it comes to court of public opinion, Ch shouldn't be a flight risk either, especially if the guy approached him and swung on him first. Would you not agree?
Um whether I agree or disagree with that, it's again it's not just the flight risk like they're going to leave the country aspect. It's again how did they get in the situation? Are they likely if they were out on bond to do it again? And again, Chud has a history like that's literally his entire MO is to make YouTube videos antagonizing people to try to get a rise out of them and X Y and Z. So the situation that he's in, the judge looks at that and he goes, "Okay, how often do you put yourself in these types of situations?" Or, "How often are you in these types of situations?" Oh, I can go to your YouTube channel and see a hundred videos or whatever wherever he upload. I don't know where he uploads, but I can go to online and see a hundred videos of you doing the same thing >> and the same thing could have occurred.
>> How does he shoot people?
>> That's a that's irrelevant. It's about you putting yourself in those same situations where the same thing could happen.
>> That same argument can be made about Carmelo because it was doesn't put he doesn't the judge cannot go on on on any social media and find a hundred videos of Colonel Anthony going to track meets sitting somewhere where maybe he shouldn't be maybe he should be and getting into fights with people so he does not have a pattern a historical pattern of that >> neither one of them >> not they do Chud has a pattern of antagonizing people and causing these situations >> Chud has a pattern of creating content he does not have a pattern of shooting people >> he has a pattern of creating conflict >> he has a pattern >> his content his content is creating in conflict.
>> Gotcha. Controversial. Now, when it comes down to it, just because he has a pattern of creating conflict does not mean that it results in him shooting someone. I will make the same argument.
I will make the same argument about Carmelo. Just because you sit under a tent does not mean that you're going to stab someone and kill them because Carmelo does not have a history of killing people.
>> That again, that's it doesn't it doesn't matter if it doesn't matter whether each every single instance that you have of you antagonizing people reason someone getting shot or not. It's the fact that that is what you're going to do. I feel like you're going to go out to the public and you're going to antagonize people and you're going to cause more issues and it's more than likely or it is likely there's a higher likelihood than I than I like >> that this is going to happen again.
Therefore, my the bond is going to be higher.
>> Are you familiar with the Kyle Written House case?
>> Vaguely.
>> Kyle Writtenhouse, they said that he uh took a rifle across state lines and he was down there shooting a whole bunch of black people and they said he was a flight risk. Mhm.
>> Would uh based on that what I just told you, would you say they if you was the judge, would you say that Kyle written house was a flight risk?
>> He went across state line. He had the AR. He told the dude to hold the AR across the state line. He's going to come down. He grabbed it then went to the thing. Um I don't know if I would call it a flight risk, but community risk, maybe.
>> All right, cool. Then you come to find out through evidence and through trial, he actually didn't bring the gun across state lines. He actually did not go down there to shoot black people. And he actually um he actually uh purchased he actually put money up to purchase the gun and the gun was in someone else's name until he became the age of 18. And that he actually did not shoot one black person at all after social media, politics, and everyone else in music said that he was down there shooting black people. He only shot >> I didn't hear him shooting black people at all. Oh, yeah. It was Oh, I can play the clip.
>> I I I'm familiar enough with his case. I thought you meant like the actual details, but yeah, I know he was attacked with somebody with a skateboard. He blew off someone's hand.
He killed one or two or I'm sorry if I can't I'm sorry for saying that. Uh >> I'm not monetizers. Okay.
>> Okay. Uh, you know, he killed one or two people and the dude with the skateboard got his I think his hand shot off or some stuff like that. He had given the gun the AR to someone else and blah blah. So, I'm familiar enough. Um, again I the thing with him is that his stated goal was to >> um his in his head he was it was you know the inflam inflammatory remarks from Trump about oh these people and well whether it's just that or whether it's the news and actually happening or whatever kind of irrelevant but these businesses are not going to be protected so I'm going to go protect them >> I'm going to go be a vigilante or whatever. So again it's not necessarily about the flight risk. Does this judge think that if he's out on bond or out on bail that he's going to go to another city and try to protect it again? That's where it is. So, >> but then you have never had a state to go, oh, I'm going to go to a track meet and cause some ruckus or just what is the justification to reducing a murderers or we're going to someone died. What is the justification to reducing their bond down to $250 other than the fact that the judge was black and she felt sympathy for me because he was black? 250,000 or 250 I mean whose bond was $250 >> $250,000 that was Kyle I mean uh uh um Carmelo Anthony was I don't 250 is a pretty hefty amount >> compared to a million it went from a million to $250 for a one-time offender that doesn't have a a history of repeated behavior like this >> okay >> what do you think the what do you think the average bond is for or bail is for >> I would say go ahead >> for for you know again our justice system is you know um >> [ __ ] up >> supposed to be well you can say that but supposed to be you know innocent until proven guilty. So although we have >> details and you know uh witness testimony and that good stuff about certain things that happened >> um with Carmelo what is the issue or what I'm sorry let's go back to it. What do you think the average bail is for people that are being charged but not necessarily convicted obviously of you know murder or manslaughter even?
>> To be honest with you, I don't know. But I would think that the the the average should be a million dollars for everybody.
>> Let me look.
>> That's just me.
>> I think the average should be a if you took someone's life, yo yo >> I think I think that if you're charged with first degree, I would be surprised if you get bail. Um, if you're charged with manslaughter, uh, you know, negligent manslaughter, accidental manslaughter, whatever else, I wouldn't be surprised if there's bail. Um, I don't see any reason why, um, manslaughter or something similar wouldn't get bail. Uh, if it's first, second, you know, premeditated type [ __ ] yeah, I don't know. Um, I I would I would think that their bail is extremely high if they get any bail at all. And so with Carmelo, he's not his situ. I don't think anybody can say in his sit in his situation that it was premeditated. So at worst, he's going to be charged with manslaughter. And I don't even know if you can say, obviously, it's debatable about whether you you know, certain individuals think that it was intent to kill. Others will say, "No, it wasn't." You know, we can get into that. But >> bail was a million and it went down to 250,000.
>> Yeah. So the the initial bail is going to be probably without mitigating circumstances and then the you know the judge is going to hear and then they're going to decide um whether it should be lowered, stay the same, restricted, whatever the case may be. And with Carmelo if he's originally initially char maybe in Texas if you're charged with firstdegree or sec or any of the you know first or second degree murders your bail is going to start at 1 million and then when the judge hears the case and decides whether they have mitigating circumstances or something they may drop it. So that may be why it started out.
>> Yeah. Mayo monkey says, "Bringing bringing a knife to attract me clearly m premeditated."
>> Yeah, I saw that. I saw that goofy comment. Um >> yeah, >> I mean that's argument premeditated. I carry I carry all the time.
>> Does that mean that if I get in a situation and I have to defend myself that it's premeditated, I would murder someone.
>> But that same argument can be made and I'm not arguing for Chud. I'm just making the argument just, you know, for for happen sake. The same argument can be made for sure. Just because he has antagoniz Hold on for a second child walking past. So just because I and just because I make controversial content and I engage with people, that does not mean that they have to engage with me. And if they come after me or they try to assault me and I and I defend myself, just because I have a history of defending myself does not make me a criminal, nor does that make me a fight risk. Would you agree or disagree? It makes you a it makes you um again you keep on hanging on the flight risk and I'm not even arguing for the flight risk.
>> Let's just a pattern of be >> more the fact that you go into the community and you antagonize people which is more like which is going to is more than likely.
>> Do you have to do these people have to engage with me?
>> It doesn't it doesn't matter. It's the fact that you know you're going out there and there's going to be someone that you antagonize that this stuff is most likely going to pop off against.
This is how you make your money by antagonizing people by being a nuisance.
>> So it doesn't it it doesn't matter. I'm just telling you what from a from the standpoint of a judge.
>> I got but being a nuisance should not be a determination on whether or not if I'm that bad of a person that my bond needs to be either so high or so low or I need to be let go or stay.
>> Again, if you are constantly doing the same behavior that got you in the situation you're locked up for, >> then yes, that is going to come into play. That is that I don't know I don't know why you don't think so. If I if if you if you're constantly um stealing food then it is likely that you're going to try to steal food again if you were to be let go. If you got if you were constantly stealing food and you got arrested for stealing food and they is it like is judge going to say is it likely that they try to steal food when they get out since they've done it 10020 times and it's on video of them doing it or are they not likely to do it? And since that is a portion of what is going to determine whether you get bail or how high your bail is or how low your bail is set, then yeah, that is a perfectly fine thing to consider in in in the context of whether they get bail. Not only is it perfectly fine, that is their that is a factor that they have to consider.
>> I got you. Uh, bro speaks. Go ahead. We going to be up here for like 30 more minutes and then I got a movie date. So, bro, speak go ahead.
>> Yeah. Uh, I was trying to Somebody was trying to say that uh just having a weapon is premeditated. How is that premeditated?
If you if you know that you're in a situation that where violence can happen to you, you're protecting yourself. So if you holding a weapon to protect yourself, that's not premeditation.
>> That's correct. But it's all on how you argue it in the court, right? We all know that when it comes out to the American legal system, >> um it's not about true or false about it's about how you argue or what you can prove.
>> Right.
>> So I can the argument I I carry firearms. The argument could be made that if I go out here with my family right now and someone get to saying something to me and I get to saying something back to them, I'll be like, "If you on some [ __ ] you want to find out, then come on with your bullshit." And then they come at me and then I shoot them. People can say, "Oh, well, that was premeditated because he went out there looking for a fight."
That's typically how a lot of these lawyers and a lot of these prosecutors, how do they come after uh firearm carriers? They say that we we are participating in premeditated acts just because we have a firearm. I think it's just not true.
>> But I can accept that because I can even say that Carmelo Anthony was not participating in a premeditated action just because he had a knife on him. But if I'm going to accept that, then I also have to accept the fact that what uh Ch the Builder did, just because he has mace on him or firearm, that does not mean that what he did was premeditated.
Especially if he has a pattern. And this is what I was going back and forth with AR about. If he has a pattern of behavior of engaging with people and then not resulting into someone getting shot, that should he just have a pattern of engaging with people. Even if it's antagonizing, it should not result in a case to where a guy is now throwing hands at you and then you have to defend yourself and you shoot him.
>> That pattern of behavior is all based on circumstance and how it is that that judge presumes it. Go ahead.
>> Yeah, that's that's about the same as Okay. If you are a political person and you go out, you make uh you go make speeches, I'm pretty sure you're going to antagonize somebody in in those speeches. So, does that mean now now now if he protecting himself? Oh, now he can't do that because well, you you make speeches that antagonize people. Even if it's you saying the most mundane stuff, somebody's gonna be antagonizing because they might not just like you as a person.
>> Well, that was the argument that DJ Academics was making about Charlie Kirk, right?
>> Yeah.
because he made because he made or because what people assumed what he's saying was offensive then he got what he got and it was uh justifiable even on a not even on but on a social level that what happened to Charlie Kirk was justifiable because he offended people.
My thing is is being offended a form of assault. Just because I offend you that does not mean that you should assault me. Can you assault me? Of course if you choose to should you? Probably not just because you're offended. You see what I'm saying?
Yeah, I Yeah, I thought that was a terrible argument that he made because it's like I mean I work in in an environment where you I get antagonized a lot.
>> But guess what? If I swing on that person, I'm going to be in the wrong, >> right? Cuz his words doesn't mean I get to swing on, >> right? Because words should not equal out to violence. And when it comes down to it in this particular situation, just like the >> Go ahead.
>> Why? Where is can? All right. So, what were you guys?
>> I didn't say I didn't say can't I say it should should not >> Well, I think it should in some instances. So, what was your guys' stance on for example, I think it was Philly or New York or wherever it was where the dude was on the uh threatening people or saying threatening words, using threaten threatening language, and then the ex-marine choked him out, ended up passing away. What was your guys' stance on that situation? cuz he didn't put his hands on anybody.
>> Was that Was that Philly or was that New York?
>> It was one of those places that I don't want to look.
>> I think it was New York and I know what you're talking about.
>> We're not talking We're not talking about the cigarette guy, is we?
>> No, >> the guy >> I'mma kill for some food or something along those lines.
>> Yeah, that guy started fearing for themselves.
>> Oh, I I I know what he talking about.
And I would say on that instance, yeah, that's a threat.
>> We're not talking about you should be able to defend. You shouldn't My point is that or my thing is that you shouldn't have to wait to defend yourself until someone punches you in the face. If they say they're going to punch you in the face or if they say something that hints at that, if they're making movements towards doing that, you should be able to defend yourself.
>> Okay. But okay, I I hear you on that one cuz But you can also make But that doesn't mean you get to shoot them because they they punch you. That's not that's not how that go. I >> I agree. Which is why I don't think Carmemelllo I mean obviously Carmemella didn't shoot someone. He stabs someone, but he got pushed when he stab someone.
This is why I don't think that he's going to he has a self-de self-defense argument. Um however, if someone says, "I'm going to kill you." and they and they start reaching for a gun. Yeah, I think you should shoot them.
>> I don't think you should wait to find out if they're serious about killing you or not. I I don't As a matter of fact, I don't even think if they they don't have to reach for a gun. If they say, "I'm about to go to my car and get my gun and kill you." I think you should be able to shoot them >> now. Yeah. And and you shoot this guy >> and per the investigation, they found out he never had a gun at all. You should get what's coming to you right.
>> I'm going to get what's coming to me by the jury. If the jury says, "Hey, if the jury thinks like me, he's going to get off." If I'm on the jury, he's getting off.
>> Gotcha. So, let me ask you this question, right? I'm sorry. Uh, Brother Br, go ahead.
>> Yeah, but but here's the problem. Okay, that's after the fact. You don't know if he got a gun or not. So, now it could have been an empty threat. And the juryy's going to be like, "Well, you didn't even check. See, he had a gun or nothing like that." And he walked off.
>> Now he come back. He looked like he pulled something. Okay. Well, then yeah, but if he walked out, you just shoot him in the back or something like that before he even even attempted to go get the gun.
>> Well, if you shoot anybody in the back, if you shoot anybody in the back, uh, you're gonna have a hard time finding self-defense.
>> Yeah. Well, in the back or you just shoot them anyway. Just I don't think that >> not necessar that might not be the right term. I probably apologize. You just break in. If you break in my house and you're on and if you break in my house and you're on my and you're on your way to my daughter's room and I shoot you in the back, I can easily justify that. If you're running out of my house and I shoot you in the back, that's a different story. You see what I'm saying?
>> Right. Right. I see.
>> That what the judge thinks or says is irrelevant because those are all going to a jury. And so it depends on how your lawyer argues and how the prosecution argues. And if I'm on a jury and someone breaks into someone, this is just me personally. If I'm on the jury and someone breaks into somebody's house and they get killed over it, I don't care whether they shot him in the ass, whether they shot him in the back, whether they unloaded the whole clip.
>> I'm not You're not guilty in my eyes.
>> Gotcha.
>> And yeah, the law might say something differently.
>> Doesn't matter what the law says, the jury has the final say. That's the great thing about juries is that a law can be something that society doesn't agree with or that local society or wherever they're being tried doesn't agree with and they're going to get off.
>> Well, this is why they say if you're going to shoot, you you make sure they dead. You don't shoot the wound, you shoot the kill. Right.
>> Right.
>> So, the thing is even where Chudge [ __ ] up at in this situation, he wounded the guy. He didn't kill the guy.
And I'm not saying that he should have killed him, but when it comes down to it, he shouldn't have if you was going to do something like that, you got to make sure that they did because now here's the other side of the argument.
If you shot to stop the threat, why didn't you kill the threat? You see what I'm saying?
>> Because the threat was stopped.
>> That does Just because I shoot you in the foot does not mean that you gonna stop.
>> No, but you shoot and if and if if there's no further movements or actions towards aggression or whatever, you can say, "Hey, I stopped because when I shot him, he stopped moving or whatever." This is going to be your argument when you're on if if you decide to, you know, um take take the stand. Um, but at least this is what your defense uh your defense council is going to argue something on the lines of like >> he he he didn't want to kill him. We know that because, you know, he shot one time and after after he realized the threat was neutralized, he he didn't he he stopped shooting. He stopped uh you know, defending himself at that point because there was no longer any defense needing needed. Um, >> y'all getting ready?
>> Okay. All right, y'all. I'm I got to uh go get showered up and get changed up.
We about to go to the movies and uh we got to go take care of some other business. But I appreciate y'all coming up. Thank y'all for stopping by. A appreciate you, bro. Speak. Everybody in the chat, appreciate y'all stopping by.
We about to get ahead and get up out of here. Appreciate y'all. Yes, sir.
Appreciate you. Have no problem. Be safe. Take it easy.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
