Does "Rage-Baiting" Void Your Right to Self-Defense? | Legal Breakdown with Attorneys on Retainer

Añadido: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Holy [ __ ] >> They're out here.

[00:00:01]>> What the [ __ ] >> Somebody got shot.

[00:00:04]>> Are there someone there?

[00:00:05]>> Yeah.

[00:00:05]>> Yeah.

[00:00:06]>> Oh my god.

[00:00:07]>> Hello and welcome to another episode of RFCOM News. In today's episode, we look at the First and Second Amendment issues as they pertain to the controversial shooting that happened with Chud the Builder earlier this month. And we get some cool legal recommendations from our friends at Attorneys on Retainer. But first, I want to give a big thank you to this week's sponsor and that is Hollow Sun. Having earned their position as a prolific optic manufacturer, they have continued to innovate with the new launch of their 507C X3RD, keeping many of the features you loved about the previous generations while adding a host of end user informed updates.

[00:00:44]We are back with another really cool collaborative effort here with Howard on Attorneys for Freedom. Uh we're going to talk about a really, really controversial case here with a guy named Chud the Builder. probably seen this going through uh the interwebs for you.

[00:00:59]There's been a lot of discussions on both sides of the fence. Basically, what happened is this guy Chud is just what I'm going to call him here. Uh got into an incident with uh shout out to Bob Steak and Chop House. I've actually eaten there and it's a wonderful steakhouse actually. Uh it's a chain restaurant, but he didn't pay a tab for this steakhouse which led to him being at the courthouse. So, he walked on a bill. Uh obviously, he got arrested for that. That is theft of service. Um, and so in trying to reconcile that in court, he got into a confrontation outside of the courthouse which eventually led to uh an al a verbal altercation which led to him actually shooting that individual. Both of them at up until this point have survived. Obviously, some have more injuries than others. Uh, and this places us in a really interesting uh bisection of both the first and the second amendment and what legal considerations we have to do when applying those freedoms. Uh Howard, I'll let you give a quick intro to yourself for those that don't know who you are.

[00:01:56]Uh and we'll get into this really interesting conversation.

[00:01:58]>> Well, I'm Howard Sned and I'm a senior criminal defense attorney at Attorneys for Freedom. And Attorneys for Freedom is the law firm that backs attorneys on Retainer. So, we've had some confusion in the past. I just want to make sure people understand I am a real lawyer at a real law firm and if you're a client of attorneys on retainer, you're going to get the law firm service >> right off the rip. uh the the very first thing that's kind of talked about and it was almost a calling card for Chud specifically was the whole idea around the first amendment and there is a protection a blanket he had a really good statement about what a constitutional amendment is and what the worth of a constitutional amendment is and he is what they call a race baiter I'll let you guys Google that you can kind of look at the type of race baiting that he did in his content uh but he specifically got uh fame or popularity out of being a controversial person he would instig ate a lot of kind of fruitless or raceoriented arguments with people in the street. Um, and you can kind of Google the language that he was using behind that. I'm trying not to get us in trouble on YouTube, but um, the first amendment under there, there's going to be some religious rights that are protected there. Uh, but most people know it for freedom of speech, which says I can say what I want when I want.

[00:03:12]Uh, and the government can't stop me from doing it. Uh, there is a pretty fat asterisk on that, which we'll kind of get into. How what is your take on often misconceptions around the first amendment specifically?

[00:03:23]>> I'm just going to talk in big generalities here. The first amendment protects unpopular speech. The second amendment protects those liberties that somebody may want to restrict or remove from you. So the real test of a constitutional right is whether or not it can survive an attack by an unpopular person or survive an attack by an offensive idea. And as an attorney, I'd like to think I can see both sides of the argument. And certainly you and I do not condone the language this guy uses.

[00:03:56]We don't condone the clickbait that he goes through to get people to to monetize his his sites because his stuff is just vile. It's bigotry personified.

[00:04:08]And I can stand here and defend him for the ability to say what he wants to say, but I don't have to condone what he's saying. And I I really need people to understand there are limitations on what you can say and when you can say it. And his speech is pretty offensive.

[00:04:25]>> There was a really good quote that said, "I I don't have to believe in what you want to say, but I will die for your right to say it." Which I think kind of encompasses the American idea behind it is that we want to be a lot of people when they look at something like multiculturalism or whatever, uh they'll look at it very academically. And ultimately being that we are a nation of people that kind of came here because we didn't like where we were at before. Um I I I think we have to accept uh the danger of being around people and also just the level of discomfort of being around people that are not like us. They don't share our values. They don't share religious beliefs. And that's the beautiful thing about America. And you specifically had when they were discussing things that should be in the Constitution that don't just automatically fall under the umbrella of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That was one of the first ones was unpopular ideas, which was good. Uh, where this gets into muddier water. And what I talk about with the asterisks is there's definitely across the board in all 50 states, whether you lean red or blue or somewhere in the middle, there are restrictions either in specific areas or under specific circumstances where yes, you can say it, but the government has an interest in stepping in. One, for the sake of preserving the peace, uh, but two, for also like trying to preserve the liberties of everybody else. It's really interesting. It's not hurt feelings that we're worried about here. It is actual potential legitimate danger. Uh and that that's a really thick gray area to kind of navigate. I I would like to hear your take on that and when you believe that line gets crossed.

[00:05:53]>> Again, the facts have not really been made public regarding how the incident went down yet. So, let's let's take a few basic facts as you and I understand them right now. Chud is on the courthouse steps. He was there for a legitimate business reason. He had a court matter and while he was on the courthouse steps, he engaged with these other individuals. And I've been checking the website trying to get some updates and it seems as though some people were taunting him that were a little ways away from him.

[00:06:26]>> So he decided to go over to them. So he's initiating that contact. And when he initiated that contact, they had a discussion. My understanding is he walked away and then at that point those other at least one of those those people decided to follow him and that's when there was some kind of confrontation between Chud and this other gentleman.

[00:06:48]Now as offensive as Chud's language might be, he doesn't lose his constitutional right to protect himself.

[00:06:55]Except if he does something that puts him into what we call the aggressor doctrine. If he turns into the aggressor, you can't hide behind that fact and then claim self-defense. So, it's going to be interesting. The prosecutor is going to say he violated it. He was the aggressor. Therefore, he gets what was coming to him and he can't claim self-defense as a result. And the defense attorney stood up at his at his bond setting and said, "Yeah, this is going to be a self-defense case. He has a right to his first amendment speech.

[00:07:24]He can be as nasty and as vile as he wants to be, but he has a right to say what he's going to say." I mean, the bottom line is the Constitution contains no exceptions for jerks. So, no matter what you think about Chud personally, he still gets constitutional protections.

[00:07:40]So now the issue is, does his conduct rise to a level of a disorderly conduct?

[00:07:46]And if it rises to a level of disorderly conduct, is he expecting some type of retaliation or provocation to come back at him? And he is requesting it. He wants it. he's baiting people into it.

[00:08:00]So, yeah, he's expecting that. And I think the state's gonna have a real good argument that he is the aggressor in the totality of the circumstances.

[00:08:08]>> Texas is a unique state and that we have mutual combat where technically as a cop, if I show up and two people are like, "Hey, we want to settle this with fisticuffs. As long as serious bodily injury didn't come of it, the at most I could maybe issue a ticket for fighting in public and both people walk their way just because it caused a disturbance."

[00:08:24]But there are situations where, hey, they scrapped, they were cool with it, you know, they they shook hands and we call it a day. We're unique as a state uh in that. I think there's a maybe a handful of others that have a similar clause in their law.

[00:08:37]>> As a defense attorney, I love it when Yeah, you may have a mutual combat situation and then the officers arrest both parties.

[00:08:45]>> Yep. I have done that before.

[00:08:46]>> And the problem is it's great for the defense attorneys because each party clams up. They won't testify against the other party. prosecutors can't do anything. So, at some point, the prosecutors has to have to decide who they want to go after.

[00:09:00]>> But yeah, the mutual combat stuff, it it happens all the time >> where this is interesting and specifically on an investigative standpoint. So, you you're coming to just let's just say it called a disturbance. Let's say the gun never comes out, right? Uh what what sucks specifically for Chud is he has a lot of visual accounts of him antagonizing people, right? is walking up to them saying things that are known to be inflammatory in nature.

[00:09:25]>> He heard his target word. I got something else for you too if you want it. I'm trying to spare your life. Get the [ __ ] out of here.

[00:09:33]>> Uh when you talk about breach of peace, there's a lot of breach of peace offenses that occur in all 50 states where they say what you said is known to be offensive. You are making yourself the aggressor. If you walk into a mosque and you don't take your shoes off and you walk into the middle of a religious ceremony and you yell at everybody there, you are intentionally putting yourself in a situation to provoke a disturbance of sorts and they will typically they're going to say, "Well, whoever's causing the problem is the one that's going to get the consequences."

[00:10:00]What you look at it from a peacekeeping perspective, right? So law enforcement is going to look at it and say, "Well, the guy that's got a history of doing this versus the guy that maybe doesn't have at least a documented history of it. Who's it going to be easier to prove?" especially when you have eyewitness testimony of all the people that are there. I'm sure there were plenty of people in the courthouse. And unfortunately for Chud here, if he's there by himself and this other person who I believe was a disabled veteran um that he actually got into this altercation with, um if all of his friends were there and they're the only other statements that you get about this, of course they're going to have a level of bias. Of course, that's going to get brought up in discovery or if they their eyewitness testimony gets brought in, but everyone's going to claim he walked over there, said some things that were knowingly and understandably offensive to him, even after they disengaged. What he loses in a lot of situations is it's no longer self-defense unless it was a proportional response to force. Right.

[00:10:54]There's claims that he got sucker punched. We don't know specifically who made this a physical altercation versus not. But at the very minimum, the I'm a helpless victim and I'm a self-defending myself. If this was just fisticuffs, right, we just went to fighting. It's going to be really hard for him to prove that even for the guys on the ground when we figure out who he is. Everyone talks about what was said and it's like, well, you know, you run into a gang affiliated territory wearing the wrong colors and saying the wrong things to the wrong people. Not that you're you can ask for it, not the victim blame here, but you are putting yourself in a situation to lose the ability to claim self-defense. It's the same situation of enttrapment. If I as a cop are like, "Hey, you want some drugs and provide you drugs and I know that you're a drug dealer." A lot of that stuff gets kicked because I'm losing the culpability side of it. I provided an opportunity for you to cause crime, enticed you into doing it. I can't now claim that you're some super villain or whatever. Um, more similarly here, and we'll kind of get into it, is going to be proportionality of it. Um, he's not a small human being.

[00:11:54]And this is kind of the double-edged sword of being a larger person when it comes to a physical altercation. This often comes up when it comes in domestics, right? When you talk about the use of force between two people, uh, if one person's way bigger than the other, technically the law is going to, and especially when you talk about a jury of your peers. When I prop up a 5 foot five, 100 lb person that got into a fight with someone who's 6'5 and 300 lb, if the level of force would normally be uh unreasonable, like you said, somebody produces a weapon even though a weapon wasn't there to begin with, it's an easier argument to make when there is a size difference. Him being a guy that takes care of himself and works out and is stronger is also losing that idea that just because someone punches me doesn't mean you get to go and defend yourself with a gun. even from a brandishing standpoint, even from a Now, if you're really really small, you probably get away with that. Uh especially if there's like a group of people that are assaulting you, you can talk about proportionality, but I think it's somewhere else where he's in a lot of hot water. And where there, yes, the Second Amendment is a fail safe that you'll probably survive that encounter if you do end up getting into too hot of water into a physical altercation, but the consequences of the use of that Second Amendment right are going to put you in pretty weird a weird space, at least legally speaking. So self-defense often happens in like in a domestic violence situation where the husband's usually twice the size of as the wife.

[00:13:16]Had it happened yesterday, not a DV situation, but the call that came in that I took, yeah, the aggressor was 230 pounds and my client was 110. So size does matter in that respect. It's one of the factors that get looked at here. But what we got with Chud is a little bit different. Um I had heard about the guy being possibly a disabled veteran. And I heard that maybe he poked Chud with a cane or a stick of some sort, >> right?

[00:13:42]>> That may that again, we don't know all the facts. And if the disabled veteran does have a quote weapon in that situation, Chud may have been allowed the self-defense claim at that point.

[00:13:55]Chud disengaged. The guy came back to him. If the guy comes back to him, pokes Chud with the stick. Um, yeah, maybe Chud has that lifeline of a self-defense claim there. We'll see where the facts play out. But the bottom line is he's exercising his First Amendment right.

[00:14:11]>> Yep.

[00:14:13]>> That doesn't mean he loses Second Amendment rights. He may or may not be allowed to draw his firearm. That that'll all be dealt with down the road.

[00:14:22]But what is of concern to me is how the prosecutor is going to frame this. And you got the aggressor doctrine out here on the one side where he provoked this guy to come back to him.

[00:14:34]And the provocation, if you watch Chud's other videos, I mean, he's literally saying, and he's using language I don't want to repeat, but he's literally saying, "Come on, if you, you know, let's come on, take me on." And the guy may or may not do that.

[00:14:50]>> See what happens.

[00:14:50]>> Or what?

[00:14:51]>> Put the N. See what happens.

[00:14:53]>> You want to get blown apart.

[00:14:56]>> Come on over here.

[00:14:59]>> Come on.

[00:15:01]>> Look at him. He'sing out. the videos I've seen, he's literally yelling at somebody in a car going down a sidewalk saying, "Man, if this guy comes back one more time, I'm going to shoot him." He's literally putting that on his own video.

[00:15:14]And of course, there's the one that's out there right now where Chud is literally saying on a I don't know if it was a video or if it was just a dialogue comment somewhere that he was going to put an end down in the street. Um, and but the bottom line is Chud's got all these comments and a prosecutor is going to go through everything he's ever put on social media to show that this guy was looking for the one opportunity to go out and shoot somebody that he was targeting.

[00:15:47]>> And that's that's the defense attorney is going to have a fun time on this case. It's there's going to be a lot of stuff that he's going to have to keep out of evidence and try and keep the incident solely localized to what happened in that moment that he pulled the firearm. And that's going to be a real tough argument. But as we're sitting here, yeah, you have the right to say what you want to say. That doesn't mean you're free from social consequences. Doesn't mean you're free from criminal consequences. And the only issue at this point is because of what he said, did he lose his right to self-p protection?

[00:16:17]>> I did a little bit of digging this morning specifically on it.

[00:16:20]Unfortunately for Chud, the person he did get into an altercation was was a black male. So that is going to be a spicy meatball given his previous statements. Absolutely. What's what's potentially going to play into his favor here is that that person did have previous domestic violence arrests on his record. So there's potentially basically two people that like violence meeting each other. The problem's going to be is who instigates it and who's an the aggressor in this instance. I I if even if it goes out the way that he's claiming where somebody said something to him from across the street, that person has the first amendment right to say whatever they feel like to you in the same way that you have your first amendment right to do it. If you go over to him the second you're closing the distance on someone, you're losing a lot of your playing the victim card here.

[00:17:03]Obviously, they they separated, they re-engaged, eventually has turned into a fight, and then really on the use of the firearm side of it, especially when you're encumbered with somebody. We don't have a video to go on on how that happened. He did end up injuring himself with the gun. I don't know if he grazed himself or it was a through and through or whatever. He seemed to be fine. He got released later that day. Uh but there is at the very minimum, yes, you can have the gun. And God bless it. I'm glad you can. But at least do yourself the favor of train with it in a manner that you don't hurt yourself with it because that is not very helpful for anybody. It's doing the exact opposite of the reason why you got it. And then be very conscious of the way that you go about implementing it because the way you implement it is always the way that you're going to have consequences. The other thing with attorney for our clients at attorneys on retainer, we always tell them if you're involved in a situation to just shut up. And what does Chud do? He's on the gurnie getting lifted up into the ambulance.

[00:17:58]And Chud decides to live stream his dialogue with his audience at the time he's getting lifted into the ambulance.

[00:18:05]And Chud does not just shut up. Rather, Chud's Chud's trying to make his case, saying, "Hey, look, man. The guy was coming after me. He's doing this and this.

[00:18:14]>> Started wailing on me. Even after I had to defend myself by shooting him, he's still wailing on me.

[00:18:23]>> It was my gun.

[00:18:26]He he tried to attack me and then he >> he literally punched me in my head >> on stream >> and he said, "Yeah, I shot him. I intended to shoot him." So, he's laying the prosecutor's groundwork right there.

[00:18:42]And some people will say, "Well, yeah, but he's he's saying in that same statement that he felt threatened. He was scared." Yeah, it's going to be hard. Like you said, he doesn't have any defensive injuries. I think it is that he shot himself. So, did he get whacked by the cane? Does he scraped and scuffed? No. Are there any witnesses that say he got beat up? No. He's using language in that live stream saying, "Yeah, I I he got a guy got shot and he's still walloping me after that." So, it's like, no, there's there's a missing piece of the puzzle here. and Chud and his comments are going to come back to haunt him. You can't untake those statements that are out there in public.

[00:19:17]So when you're involved in an incident, just shut up.

[00:19:20]>> Yeah, that is always the golden rule is shut your mouth and call your attorney.

[00:19:23]For sure. Um I I think a general good news for both of them is we have as much as it's hard for Americans to believe one of the most robust legal systems in actually trying to argue your case especially if you can maintain an attorney that is actually going to advocate for your rights in these situations despite all of the political conversation that's happening here.

[00:19:43]Hopefully the facts of the case are what drive either the prosecution or lack thereof and that everything is taken to account. Um, but ultimately it is a jury of your peers. And this is kind of where I think both the first and second amendment can burn a lot of people is yes, you can have it. However, your speech can and will bias people, specifically jurors. No matter what they say about, hey, well, I I don't, you know, you're not supposed to take bias.

[00:20:08]You're just supposed to look at the facts. They're still people at the end of the day. You are going to be judged by that. and your previous history is going to come into account when they look at that because the prosecution's a thousand% going to bring it up. Uh cuz and there's they have a reason to, right? Especially when it when it goes towards premeditation to the specific crime that you did. And then specifically on the Second Amendment, I I like I said, if it was up to me, felons, like I said, if you were free to walk around on the earth and you were not in an institution, I believe you should have access to a firearm. Uh the issue becomes the second you implement it, there is no way that you're not going to have some level of law enforcement involvement, some level of the public having a strong opinion on it. And whether we like it or not, as much as we would like to make the Second Amendment an apolitical topic, you are placing yourself in that category. And worse off, you're implicating the rest of us uh who are gun owners and want to defend that right. You are now basically a representative of us. So, I'd like for you to tread in a manner that's going to be a good make you a good ambassador for gun owners and for people championing that right because ultimately you're going to be lumped in with us.

[00:21:10]>> Well, I mean, along the same lines, you and I have talked about this before. As soon as you present that firearm, as soon as you either display it or pull it from its holster, law enforcement is going to get involved because your conduct is illegal unless it's otherwise justified. So, there's going to be that investigation. But something else you just said, one of the questions we tossed out in preparation for our conversation today is can a juror actually separate one's constitutional rights from their personal disgust? And that's what's that's what's going to be going on here in this case. And people watch TV and watch movies and they think you're going to get a jury of your peers. And I can tell you as an experienced trial attorney, a jury of your peers, nine times out of 10, you're going to have a bunch of older people sitting on your jury because they're the ones that can sit through a long trial without having to give up their job or take care of kids. And you're going to end up with kids that are in that 19 to 22 year old range because they're in college and right now they're, you know, if the trial goes in the summertime, they don't have employment. They're students. They can take that time off.

[00:22:17]So the middle ground jurors that might truly be jurors of his peers, that's a very small population compared to who can actually serve on a lengthy jury. So yeah, picking the right jury of his peers is going to be a lot of fun in this case also for the defense council.

[00:22:34]Um Chud's going to have to fight his way through this. It's it's not going to be an easy fight uh given his social media presence, given why he's on social media. And you know, we consider like you and I have said, he has his constitutional rights, but he's put himself in a real tough spot because of how he elected to exercise those rights.

[00:22:54]>> That's all for now. And if you like this type of content, please like, comment, and subscribe, as that is the best way to support us, giving you your 2A news every single week. You can also hype this video if you're doing this on mobile. AO is also offering our viewers a discount if you choose to retain their services by using code ARFOM at checkout. And if you'd like to get more involved in which stories we choose and what we choose to cover, there will be a link to our Discord in the description section below. And until next time, stay armed and stay dangerous.