Why Chud’s Self-Defense Claim Isn’t Falling Apart @MyronGainesX | ChudTheBuilder

Añadido: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]Keep in mind, when you're claiming self-defense, it's not like an alibi defense, right? You're not saying, "It wasn't me. I was I was having lunch with my mom, and she can testify. I have an alibi." You're saying the opposite of that. You're saying, "It was me. I shot that guy, but I did it in lawful self-defense."

[00:00:15]Well, if the prosecution eradicates the self-defense half of that statement, all that's left is "I shot that guy." Period. And that's just a confession. That's an easy conviction. So, the prosecutor's looking at those five elements, seeing if there's one, at least one, he can disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:00:30]Innocence is if you were the initial aggressor or you provoked the confrontation. Those were the biggest threats to Dalton here. Next is imminence. Imminence means the threat you're defending yourself against is either actually happening, you're actually getting beat, or it's immediately about to happen. The fist is pulled back, the gun is being presented.

[00:00:51]Um it can't be a past threat, like the the day before the guy did something bad to you. It can't be a speculative future threat that may never happen. Guy says, "I'm going to go home, get a gun, and come back here." So, [snorts] you have to have an imminent threat you're defending yourself against. But, that that's not an issue for Dalton because he was actively being attacked when he defended himself.

[00:01:10]Then we have proportionality.

[00:01:11]Proportionality is the principle that uh you can only use deadly force in self-defense if you're facing a deadly force threat. If you're only facing a non-deadly force threat, you can only use non-deadly force in self-defense.

[00:01:23]And this could be an issue for Dalton.

[00:01:24]I'm sure the prosecution will argue this cuz Dalton used a gun, and Joshua Fox didn't himself. Do you think this was his weakest point now at this point where they've debunked that you probably Probably. Okay. So, proportionality is going to be what they >> Yeah, imminence is not really on the table because of the nature of the fight. It was actually actively ongoing.

[00:01:42]But, the the prosecution can argue like, "Hey, Dalton had a right to defend himself, just not with a gun, just not with deadly force." Now, keep in mind, deadly force doesn't just mean force that can kill you. It means force that's readily capable of killing you or causing serious bodily injury.

[00:01:58]And it's not hard to imagine if a guy roughly your size has you in a headlock with his arm around your neck, he can cause you serious bodily injury. He can just drop his weight and drive the top of your head into the sidewalk. I mean, that would be serious bodily He could just wrench your neck. He could choke you out. All of that is serious bodily injury. So, I I don't think it's a strong argument for the state that there's a lack of proportionality here, but the defense is going to have to make the argument. I'm sure they'll bring in a use of force expert a medical doctor who'll testify that if you, you know, you're choking someone's neck, you can cause them that would qualify as serious bodily injury. Do you think Do you think he did in fact put him in a headlock?

[00:02:36]Cuz I know the investigator didn't like, you know, mention that, but do you >> If he didn't, it changes it just changes the analysis, right? It becomes the more force that that Joshua Fox was using against Dalton, the stronger his argument of proportionality. I think an a neck a headlock would be enough. But if there is no headlock, the defense has to make a different argument. The sustained nature of the beating, right?

[00:02:57]It wasn't one punch. It was the the fact that they went to the ground, the fact that there was a risk now struggling over the gun.

[00:03:03]So, it just changes the argument if the facts change. The less force Joshua Fox was using, the less the less justified it is to go to the gun. So, it's just a function of the facts. And small changes in facts can lead to very different changes in, you know, legal analysis and legal outcome. So, but you got But I don't hear the state denying the headlock, right? They're not saying that didn't And they've talked to Joshua Fox Well, the investigator I will say he didn't He said he didn't see it.

[00:03:30]He didn't deny it when he was asked about the headlock, but he said I didn't see it on the video, which you know It feels kind of weak, right?

[00:03:38]>> Yeah, it's like he didn't definitively say I did not see that. The the lawyer Dalton's lawyer said he put him in a headlock, then the guy said, "Oh, well, I didn't see that," which what the hell does that mean, right? But Right. And and I just don't believe I don't believe Dalton's lawyer would say that unless he believed he had evidence to support it. Exactly. Cuz then you're just exposed as a liar. And that would he would threaten his And that's another thing, too. And I was like, oh well, he if he said that, like, you know, and you lie, you know, I'm a presumably in open court, like that can really mess you up as a lawyer. You lose your bar like bar.

[00:04:08]>> I maybe maybe the lawyer was lied to by Dalton, you could say, right? But if if if if the lawyer Dalton's lawyer says in his opening statement, my client was in a headlock, and then the state can show 12 different camera angles and there's no headlock. I mean, once the jury concludes the defendant is a liar, you're you're done with self-defense. I mean, the only basis for the self-defense is is is your credibility. Um so, I just don't believe the Dalton's lawyer would just make up the headlock thing. But but if it didn't happen, it it it just becomes a different factual argument to support the proportionality. So, Then we have the element of avoidance.

[00:04:39]>> Oh, good. And avoidance has to do with whether or not Dalton would have a legal duty to retreat from the confrontation before he could defend himself. But so, there's two ways to approach approaches.

[00:04:50]The the the basic way is, well, Dalton did retreat. He did. He He walked away from the confrontation. Joshua Fox came to him. And then once the fight was on, there was no opportunity to retreat. And if there's no opportunity to retreat, there's no duty to retreat, even if Tennessee was a duty to retreat state, which it is not. It's a stand-your-ground state. So, in otherwise lawful self-defense, you wouldn't have a legal duty to retreat anyway in Tennessee. In fact, it's it's one of the earliest stand-your-ground states. They actually call it a true man defense because a true man would not back off from a fight, right? Yeah.

[00:05:24]>> Um but now there there was a risk here for Dalton. Uh Tennessee law says you don't have a duty to retreat unless you provoked the confrontation. And of course, we were speculating early on that maybe he did. Maybe he hurled a racial slur and that provoked the confrontation. If that had happened, uh Dalton would have reacquired a legal duty to retreat. He wouldn't qualify for stand your ground anymore.

[00:05:45]Uh but even then, I don't think it makes any difference because again, you this legal duty to retreat, you only have it as if retreat is safely possible.

[00:05:53]Completely safely. You're not required to increase your jeopardy and I I just don't see any opportunity here once the fight was on for him to do that.

[00:06:01]Um There is one other issue here that people have brought up and uh it's been clarified for me for me, so let me talk about it. Sure. Another way to lose stand your ground besides being the provoker is if you were engaged in a crime at the time of self-defense. You were engaged in a felony or you were engaged in a class A misdemeanor, the highest level of misdemeanor. Um and there were some speculation because Dalton's had previous uh interactions with the criminal justice system. For a time, he was under he was out on bond and he had bond conditions and one of those bond conditions is you can't have a weapon.

[00:06:33]And if you violate a no weapons bond condition, that's a class A misdemeanor.

[00:06:38]Uh so, if he was still bound by that bond condition at the time of this fight with Joshua Fox and he was not supposed to have a weapon and he did in violation of the bond condition, that would be a class A misdemeanor. He would have lost stand your ground. Again, I don't think it would matter cuz I don't think he had an opportunity to safely retreat anyway, but that's off the table. I've seen the docket now and the docket those bond conditions were lifted long before this confrontation with Joshua Fox. So, they they they would not have applied anyway.

[00:07:05]So, he so he had a right to be right to carry. Um he was obviously we can argue evidence cuz they're already fighting.

[00:07:12]Uh we can argue well, the reasonableness is going to be obviously open to interpretation, but I would argue just off what we see, him going to the ground, firing the shots while he's going to the ground, potentially getting in a headlock headlock, getting punched in the punched first. Uh I think all of that, man. I mean, like we said, every day new evidence comes out and I'm just like, yeah, this makes the self-defense case stronger. And it's kind of crazy how the state's been admitting a lot of this and we're finding it out through the hearings and even through the, you know, the witness the the state investigator even admitted the shots went off as they were going to the ground. And everyone knows, hey, any fighter will tell you, never go to the ground in a street fight. It's the worst thing you can do.

[00:07:47]You know, and I'm sure Chuck probably knew that, too.

[00:07:49]The most interesting parts to me of all this is this evidence is is dribbling out. Is everything the state has to say is equally consistent with lawful self-defense. It's It's not explicitly contrary to lawful Like this bladed stance. Well, they want to present that as evidence of, you know, some kind of aggressive stance. But it's equally the point right now, right? It is like I noticed that they they seem to me like that's their like him reaching for the gun in a bladed stance seems to be like their their That's their argument that he was the provoker.

[00:08:17]That's their That's their Rittenhouse version of he crossed state lines. Uh okay. So, it's it's [ __ ] then.

[00:08:24]It's completely [ __ ] >> Okay. Uh so, the things they're saying are equally consistent with lawful self-defense. And the things It's particularly notable the things they're not saying, right? That would be super damaging to Dalton's claim of self-defense. They're not saying he threw racial slurs. They're not saying, really, he was the initial aggressor. Uh They're They're not saying anything that you'd say to yourself, well, that really puts that element of self-defense in jeopardy. I I I'm just not seeing it. And keep in mind, you can you can 80% think this wasn't self-defense.

[00:08:55]But that's not enough. Self-defense has to be disproven beyond any reasonable doubt. Another thing that defense lawyers should be very careful to emphasize to the to the jury before the trial starts.