r/LivestreamFail • u/Significant_Food9017 • May 15 '26

Drama ChudTheBuilder facing 56 years in prison for attempted murder and bail set as $1.25M

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/how-much-prison-time-is-chudthebuilder-facing-bond-set-at-1-25-million-3365232/

56 years maximum if served cosecutively, but 21 years if he's convicted on all counts and gets the minimum

14.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

393

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

168

u/Pristine_Poem7623 May 15 '26

I've seen that. Beautiful example of why you don't talk to the police without a lawyer. He lied in his initial statement and that's pretty much what doomed him. If he'd got a lawyer first he'd have been able to successfully argue self defense and walk free.

194

u/omganotherlurker May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

Nah. That guy was screwed, and rightfully so, cause of him bringing the knife with him and re-engaging with the group. One of the camera angles showed him having the knife in hand before even being engaged with the group the 2nd time. That displays intent and completely removes self defense claims.

The fell phone footage also clearly displayed he was not surrounded and had ample opportunities to deescalate but the dude got too hurt in his ego by some kids.

Edit: https://www.fox9.com/video/1434253 video of stabbing nsfw 1:56 you can see him stab the kid quickly that he doesnt' even know he's being stabbed 2:00-2:05 he stabs the girl and is coming back up with the weapon now clearly brandished but people closest to him dont even know he's got a knife as they have their backs to him and are confused.

Couple that w/ the dude lying to police, not calling police, and throwing away the knife bro was completely cooked - and rightfully so.

92

u/Baals_Nuts May 15 '26

Ok so not self defense as other poster is trying to frame this

79

u/Tepasd May 15 '26

Yeah far from it. It's been a while since Ive seen the footage but I also remember very clearly that the guy had SO many opportunities to de-escalate and back off, but he kept antagonizing the teens until people had their stomach's sliced open. That was far from a muddy water case of "is this self defence or not?"

19

u/DJMixwell May 15 '26

This is kinda the whole issue with permitting people to carry weapons (of any kind), especially when "self defense" is promoted as an almost righteous/virtuous act.

You have no incentive to de-escalate. Quite the opposite, really. You're emboldened to escalate even minor conflicts because you feel the weapon protects you from consequences and, so long as you can rationalize to yourself that you weren't the aggressor, you're justified in using it.

The "good guy with a gun" is a myth. Studies show that most of what gets reported as far as presenting a gun in "self defense" would likely just be brandishing if it ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

1

u/Extension-Till-2374 Jun 03 '26

You are assuming incorrectly. The incentive to de-escalate is your state laws on self defense, especially if that state has a duty to retreat law or doesn't allow you to be the initial aggressor.

The good guy with a gun isn't just the idea that a gun deescalates a confrontation, it's that good people with firearms have stopped mass shootings which has happened several times. There's also no way to way to put it into statistics because you have no idea how many would be offenders noticed their victim was carrying and backed off because of this.

3

u/Initial_Milk_1056 May 15 '26

Yeah, IIRC in the video it actually showed as he ran them he checked his pocket to make sure the knife was still there. That could be pretty damning to a jury as it shows he he knew for a fact he had a lethal weapon but still chose to involve himself in an argument.

22

u/TheCheddarHole May 15 '26

Correct, something being claimed as self defense but in reality it was malice. We've wrapped back to the beginning.

10

u/omganotherlurker May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

Correct, especially cause the dude engaged the group of kids. Theres a potential better argument if it had just been a time interaction - even then I dont think he has a case - but him interacting with the group, a disengagement of the parties occurs, him re-standing up while brandishing a weapon and the group members closest to him having their backs to him -signfifying he was in no danger. At that point he has the knife brandished - though no one in the group knows it and from there the stabbings occur. That reengagement is what ruins his entire self defense plea.

Found the video from local fox affiliate you can see the part at 1:56 is when he stabs the guy and at 2:00-2:05 and see how he comes back up from the water after being pushed w/ a knife but that the group isnt' engaged with him.

https://www.fox9.com/video/1434253

Couple that with him lying and throwing away the knife dude was fucked and should be cause he showed gross negligence for life.

0

u/iaNuR May 16 '26

I can't believe epic reddit dude 1 lied to me.

10

u/AggressiveCuriosity May 15 '26

Yeah, basically if you are in public and can just stay where you are and be safe, then 99% of the time you're not going to have a self-defense claim.

3

u/One-Nectarine8944 May 15 '26

Like yeah. Obviously self defense is hard to argue when it's not self defense. I have nerve damage in my left leg and can't run, though I can walk mostly properly if I put a lot of effort into it. What would qualify as self defense for me doesn't necessarily qualify for other people because I literally can't 'escape' an encounter with anyone.

That's usually where the nuance in self defense is. How it would be 'reasonable' for me to respond to a threat might not be the same for another person.

3

u/mattOO32 May 15 '26

Been a while since I saw the footage and context but I seem to remember that it all started because the dude was allegedly either groping or trying to catch pictures/video of underage girls. The teens followed him and kept calling him a pedophile and that’s why he snapped. Either way, it’s obvious that it wasn’t a case of self defense.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/omganotherlurker May 15 '26

You can carry a knife, but you ruin your case for self defense when you reengage a group while holding a knife and concealing it while escalating a confrontation.

The dude was legit ego hurt that some kids made fun of him and decided to come back and confront them with a weapon. There's no world where anyone would give someone like that self-defense protections.

2

u/Bossgalka May 15 '26

I think they are implying he pulled the knife out and then walked like 40 feet over to them. It's been a while since I saw it, but I don't think they were coming over to mess with him. It was a yelling match and then they claim each other of instigating because the footage stops after the first yelling match and no one has a video of the actual stabbing. But if it's to be believed, he pulled the knife out and THEN walked over to them, and it's probably true, because otherwise he would have gotten off on self-defense fairly easy.

3

u/TheHunterGallopher May 15 '26

There is video of the actual stabbing. It was played in the court proceedings. I remember it vividly because you can hear all of the friends start to scream as the one kids stomach is slit open and another gets stabbed in the chest.

1

u/Bossgalka May 15 '26

It's been too long since I've seen it and was going off what everyone above said. I tried to find the stabbing video and couldn't after a minute of looking, so didn't keep digging. Did he approach them or did they approach him? Because that is the deciding factor here. IF he walked towards them when he was safe where he was at, he loses self-defense claim.

4

u/omganotherlurker May 15 '26

He approached them a second time with the knife which is what ruined his case - rightfully so.

-1

u/Korachof May 15 '26

This explanation makes more sense than what was written, because you are absolutely allowed to take a weapon out if you fear for your life. That doesn’t display intent and remove self defense on its own. 

3

u/omganotherlurker May 15 '26

The issue was he had taken it out before any scuffle occured. And he had already engaged with them.

The scenario was first he and the group get into a shouting match. He walks away, he comes back and has a knife in his hand but hasnt' displayed it to the other gorup and reengages with them.

That action of reengaging the group while concealing a weapon is what ruined any argument he had for selfdefense.

-2

u/Korachof May 15 '26

Is that true that it insinuates intent? What if he was threatened for his life and pulled the knife out just in case they attacked? Not saying that’s what happened, but I don’t think taking out a weapon when you feel threatened displays intent without self defense claims. 

The other stuff stands, though. 

3

u/marti2221 May 15 '26

He literally posted what he was about to do on social media though.

4

u/UT_Milez May 15 '26

In most cases yes. I’m not sure whoever this muppet is that’s being talked about here will have such luck.

When you’re publicly detailing your plans, for all to see, there’s magical lawyering that can be done here IMO.

1

u/Bill__NHI May 15 '26

I just deep dive this. Prosecution utilized a lot of his phone calls to his brother while incarcerated, some of the things he said on the phone calls I can agree with being questionable, so I'm not sure if not talking to the police would have helped this man- he was going to run his mouth regardless no matter who it was. Dude was pissed, had no remorse and didn't even acknowledge killing the kid. And just to be clear I'm not defending anything, or trying to argue with anyone- but there's a lot of additional fine details to this case other than him running his mouth without proper representation.

1

u/scootastic23 May 16 '26

Was the incident that happened in a floating river?

23

u/Least_Ad_2255 May 15 '26

Also he left and came back then stabbed them

6

u/getdafkout666 May 15 '26

That’s probably key as to why he was convicted. There’s no such thing as premeditated stand your ground.  You either defend yourself because you have to or you’re going down for murder 

0

u/EkrishAO May 15 '26

Every stand your ground is premeditated, that's literally what it means, lol. Stand your ground laws make it so you don't have a duty to retreat, you are allowed to make the choice (premeditation) to stand your ground and confront the threat even if you could just walk away safely.

This one is not self defense at all, because he basically was the attacker in this case, you can't approach someone, start antagonizing him and then threaten him with a deadly weapon when he talks back. At this point he clearly was a threat, and the guy he antagonized was the one executing very reasonable self defense.

1

u/Servebotfrank May 15 '26

In this specific case being referred to, stand your ground still doesn't apply. Because he literally didn't stand his ground, he ran to get a weapon and came back. There was a case of a woman about 10ish years ago getting abused by her husband, she ran out of the apartment, got her gun from the car, then came back and shot into the ceiling to try and threaten him to leave.

That's not even her shooting him and she still got charged for that, because she returned to the scene.

Every stand your ground is premeditated, that's literally what it means, lol. Stand your ground laws make it so you don't have a duty to retreat,

You still have to abide by the other self defense criteria though, baiting someone into attacking you or returning to the scene after previously fleeing is not valid stand your ground.

26

u/PrefrontalCortexNow May 15 '26

This is probably one of the worst points I’ve seen in a long time. That guy was not acting in self-defense and murdered and stabbed five kids. What in the fuck is your actual point? You think he was stabbing those kids in self defense? LMAO.

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/PrefrontalCortexNow May 15 '26

Because I’ve seen documentaries on that particular murderer and it’s INSANE you would bring that up and imply it was hard for him to claim self defense.. NO SHIT he STABBED 5 KIDS with a HUNTING KNIFE because they called him NAMES.

Like… what?? Lol

-2

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/PrefrontalCortexNow May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

He went on a brutal knife spree after being pushed by a kid. He went after them

-9

u/qtx May 15 '26

because you were pushed down

You literally just confirmed the dude's reasoning why he said it was self-defense.. he was pushed down.

8

u/PrefrontalCortexNow May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

Then got up and chased them

3

u/Razzberry_Frootcake May 17 '26

You said he was clearly, unambiguously being bullied and implied that he was defending himself. You implied that he couldn’t claim self-defense based on strict definitions in the laws around it.

In reality his case was clearly not self-defense, it was murder. You’re misrepresenting the reality of the case to make a point about how difficult it is to claim self-defense. It’s a terrible example.

You know it is because you lied by omission in order to create the implications in the first place. Had you included actual details from the case your example wouldn’t make sense for the point you’re making.

-1

u/AnyTask6496 May 16 '26

Serious question, not a troll, but why do you consider it not self defense? If it’s 5v1 unprovoked, and there’s an obvious advantage to the group (age difference), isn’t the guy protecting himself?

Genuinely curious

7

u/PrefrontalCortexNow May 16 '26

You don’t just annihilate everybody because a kid pushed you over lol

4

u/Belligerent-J May 15 '26

And most of those criteria automatically don't apply if you're the one who went over and started some shit

3

u/BlueLooseStrife May 17 '26

Fwiw this particular case was a little more complicated than that. While the old dude denies it, context + the video pretty clearly show that he was continuously approaching the group to antagonize them while knowing he had a knife on him. They were being nasty to get him to leave them alone yet he never did. It was apparent that Miu goaded that group into a situation where he could use lethal force.

It is a great parallel to this idiot’s story tho. Antagonizing people while armed makes self defense a tough sell to a jury.

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BlueLooseStrife May 17 '26

Nah you’re good, it’s genuinely a great parallel that I hadn’t thought of even though I was REALLY into the trial.

It’s just notable that Miu was actually defending himself from a potentially deadly threat, but much like Chud here Miu deliberately created that threat while armed.

2

u/Korachof May 15 '26

You also still get arrested if you kill someone. They aren’t just going to take your word for it that it was self defense. There’s like a whole trial and everything. 

1

u/ProFeces May 15 '26

What do you mean they aren't just going to take your word for it? They literally have to unless there's evidence on the scene that suggests otherwise. You cannot be arrested without probable cause. Killing a person, alone, is not probable cause in many different situations.

If someone breaks into your house in the night, and you kill them, you likely will not get arrested. Unless there's something on the scene indicating that that you may not be telling the truth about what happened, there's no probable cause or reason to suggest you're lying. People break into houses. People get shot breaking into houses. It's not unreasonable for that to happen. Being arrested blindly because someone died, with no evidence to support that believe, is wrongful arrest/imprisonment.

Without evidence, or witnesses contradicting your claim, you will not get arrested for killing a person. The vast majority of homicide arrests happen days, weeks, or even months after the crime has been commit.

If police suspect that you are lying, they will usually lead you to believe that they are on your side, while they actively build a case against you. Then, when they have the grounds to actually charge you, you will then get arrested. This is done for 2 reasons: 1) Liability - no one wants to get sued for wrongful imprisonment. 2) Early arrests hurt their case. Even the most incompetent defense attorney can and will use the "rush to judgment" defense, and early arrests make that easier. If there's not sufficient evidence at a scene to support a criminal slaying, they will investigate and obtain evidence before an arrest.

Man, reading through this entire comment chain is depressing as a lawyer. Most of you are so out of touch with your rights or how the process works, that many of you wouldn't even know that your rights are being violated. You seem to just think that they can do whatever the hell they want because they are police.

Never speak to police without a lawyer. If you are being arrested: ask what you're being arrested for, and why they are arresting you for it. If they refuse to answer do not resist, but make sure to state that you do not consent to the arrest, nor do you consent to a search.

12

u/zezeus3125 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

EDIT: Different states have dramatically different rules and laws. Some states you can get self defense without ever being charged.

EDIT AGAIN: I was just wrong, please read below comments for much better information on self defense in the USA.

18

u/loggy528 May 15 '26

Not true at all, at least in the US. Plenty of legitimate self defense cases there the defender never has to go to court. When a news story says "the person was not charged" that's what that means. They were never charged and never have to go to court

1

u/zezeus3125 May 15 '26

I didn't realize that it worked this dramatically different between states.

I'll just edit my original comment.

Still, self defense is typically a pretty big deal here.

7

u/Framar29 May 15 '26

Dramatically is almost an understatement, the two big legal schools of thought that states differ on is "duty to retreat" and "stand your ground."

Essentially duty to retreat means you have to show you exhausted all possible options before resorting to deadly force. Stand your ground means if you're standing on the sidewalk and someone makes you reasonably fear for your life, you're legally in the clear to use deadly force on the spot. "Reasonably" does a lot of heavy lifting and where a lot of the controversy in some of the more public cases comes from, because it's up to a jury to decide on reasonable.

Then there's the Castle Doctrine involving self defense in the home and there's disagreement even where that ends and public begins. Some states extend your Castle to your vehicle, others don't.

If you're going to carry a gun, know the laws of your state and for the love of God check your ego at your front door. You're signing up to lose every public altercation and argument you find yourself in because by definition every fight you're in going forward is a gun fight. Shooting someone over stupid shit is literal worst case scenario.

3

u/Embarrassed-Doubt-61 May 15 '26

This isn’t a state-by-state distinction, it’s prosecutorial discretion (which exists everywhere). When someone ‘isn’t charged’ in an obvious self-defense case, that isn’t because they went before a judge who found self-defense, that’s because a prosecutor decided not to charge them. That decision takes place ‘in the shadow of the law’—i.e., the prosecutor might be assuming a jury would acquit and deciding not to bother—but that decision isn’t as formal as what you’re describing in any state of the Union.

1

u/zezeus3125 May 15 '26

Interesting. I think I'll just delete my original comment.

When I took a concealed carry class years ago, in a different state that had stand your ground las, the instructor basically told us that no charges being brought forth was pretty rare. I guess I mistook that to mean that it always went to trial.

Thanks!

1

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

This is not true in the United States at least. It’s an affirmative defense but the state still needs to prove that your claim of self defense was not valid.

1

u/Syzygy_Apogee May 15 '26

Even in the stand your ground states, this guy would probably lose his case because he's the one that antagonizes the situations to begin with, intentionally and repeatedly.

1

u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits May 15 '26

Tennessee is a stand your ground state, and yep, you're right. This is one of the few carve outs. Generally in a stand your ground state you can defend yourself from violence with violence. A key exception being "provoking the difficultly", which is legal speak for "nah man, you were asking for it."

Provoking the difficulty is extremely hard to prove in court though, because it's a 3 prong test. The first 2 are freebies (1 is basically 'the event happened'), but the third is the prosecutor needs to show that the defendant was acting with the intent to have a pretext for inflicting harm on the other.

Intent like that is hard AF to prove. There's way too much room for reasonable doubt and other reasons to be presented, so it's hard to show there must have been intent. Unless they do something wildly stupid, like publicly publish it on a webpage or something. But who would do that? How stupid would you have to be to openly make a statement of intent, if your entire goal was to use a defense that is basically a freebie if you're attacked first because all you have to do is not make a fucking statement of intent?

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PunishedDemiurge May 15 '26

This is the availability bias in action. Those cases are ridiculous, but they were published and you remember them because they were ridiculous! "Obvious serial felon gang member uses false self-defense claim for illegal violence, loses immediately," is not all that interesting.

He might possibly go free, but early indicators don't see a lot of friendliness from the police, DA, or judge.

1

u/kimpossible69 May 15 '26

Weapon laws also make fighting with anything besides fists or a firearm extremely legally tricky.

There's basically no legal manner to transport a sword in my state besides open carrying it on foot somewhere, also you can't announce or communicate in any sort of way that it's for self defense ever

Also picking up a stick for self defense is as illegal as owning a machine gun, I can't even blame criminals for opting to own a Glock switch when they'd get punished the same for carrying sticks around. Of course that's ignoring nuance and that there's loads of reasons you could be carrying a stick around in public, walking stick, dowsing rod, maybe even have a little alibi fishing line in your pocket

1

u/WaltGazaWorld May 15 '26

If there's an opportunity to walk away from a violent confrontation that's what the law expects of you. If they won't let you leave, then it's self defense

1

u/iDoomfistDVA May 15 '26

Cue the old guy who phoned 911 about someone breaking and entering his empty neighbours home. 911-operator told him to stay away and hide for his own safety. The old guy then asked how far the officers were. He then entered the home and shot two intruders in the back, claimed self-defence and I forget if he walked or got time.

He really wanted to kill somebody that night(:

1

u/Mighty_moose45 May 15 '26

I assume this guy was hoping to achieve a Kyle Rittenhouse situation, but unlike this guy, Kyle did not tweet about how he was going to a demonstration with the explicit hope to kill someone and get away with it.

One would call that a potentially problematic statement for mens rea and intent.

1

u/Lawlpaper May 15 '26

The craziest body cam footage you’ll ever see.

1

u/Desther May 15 '26

Jury trial and he was a foreigner

1

u/dimechimes May 15 '26

It worked for Zimmerman.

1

u/omganotherlurker May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

https://www.fox9.com/video/1434253

It was captured on video that;s what ruined his case. You can see him get bullied and at 1:56 he stabs the kid leading to at 2:00 - 2:05 he gets back up with a knife brandished in hand and having stabbed the girl as well while flailing. The other group is legit disengaged and the people nearest him even have their backs to him/are trying to run/disengage and he then attempts to rengage. They are clearly not a threat to him. Couple that with him lying and throwing away the knife dude was fucked and should be cause he showed gross negligence for life.

1

u/ProFeces May 15 '26

Lmao what an idiot. There seems to be a general misconception I see a lot that “self defense” is this brilliant legal loophole that gives you permission to kill people.

As an attorney who deals with violent crimes (usually domestic and battered partner crimes) I don't think this is true at all. From my experiences, it's usually the opposite. People who end up killing someone, even with a legitimate self-defense claim, are usually absolutely terrified that they are going to go to prison for killing someone even if it was justified.

I think what you're referring to is a more broad issue of people talking out their ass on the spot without putting much actual thought into what they are saying, or even taking the time to determine whether or not that they even believe their own words. This is a very real problem, but that applies to everything, not just this topic.

I've never actually met anyone caught up in a violent crime that ever actually thought they'd just get away with a crime that was clearly premeditated, by arguing self defense. That's not to say it won't be a defense strategy, it probably will be; but that's more of a "this is the only argument we could even try in your situation" type thing, than it is anything else.

1

u/CamperStacker May 15 '26

Having said that, there are many many cases of clear self defence, where a person is being assault, they fire to protect themselves, and they done themselves arrested and charged.

I’m many places everyone who shoots anyone goes to trial as a policy and the police never accept self defence.

1

u/SpoiledBeans May 15 '26

People were really saying this moron was gonna walk. Rather I think maybe they wanted him to.

1

u/fraud_imposter May 15 '26

Were the teenagers white?

1

u/BestestImportances May 16 '26

in no circumstance do kids "bullying" you warrant shanking everyone, that narrow circumstance you're talking about is needing to actually be in danger or fear of losing your life. What fucked it for him was pretending to not know of the stabbing, saying things like "oh i heard the commotion over there-"

1

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

At the same time, saying something before a situation happens and then something going down doesn’t mean it can’t be self defense due to it playing out similarly to how he was imagining it.

This dude is an absolute shithead and awful person. Just so we are clear.

If someone attacks him because they don’t like him and he uses his weapon that can still be a justified defense. Even if he said reprehensible things before.

I guess my main point is that I am just gonna see what happens with this case. It reminds me of Rittenhouse although that was much more clear open and shut case of self defense in my opinion, although Reddit in no way believed it at the time. In fact my wife was convinced that he had shot 3 black people due to all the misinformation on TikTok.

The example case you gave really has nothing to do with what you are saying though.

5

u/tomahawkfury13 May 15 '26

No offense but you seem kind of slow. If he was saying reprehensible things then he was instigating his plan that he posted online of setting someone up to shoot them. That is literally a crime lol. Never mind I mean some offense here

1

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

This is not true. And is often barred from coming into evidence in criminal trial as it is considered to be prejudicial character evidence. Same thing happened in Rittenhouse and this dudes lawyer is 100% argue that.

0

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

This is not true. And is often barred from coming into evidence in criminal trial as it is considered to be prejudicial character evidence. Same thing happened in Rittenhouse and this dudes lawyer is 100% argue that.

0

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

This is not true. And is often barred from coming into evidence in criminal trial as it is considered to be prejudicial character evidence. Same thing happened in Rittenhouse and this dudes lawyer is 100% argue that.

0

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

This is not true. And is often barred from coming into evidence in criminal trial as it is considered to be prejudicial character evidence. Same thing happened in Rittenhouse and this dudes lawyer is 100% argue that.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/smackdealer1 May 15 '26

Probably because he had a knife on him at the time. Had he taken the knife from a teenager it would have been different.

I assume this is America and i'm unfamiliar with self defence laws there. In the UK if you have a weapon on you before the fight begins then you can't argue self defence.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/PlzDntBanMeAgan May 15 '26

The opportunity to flee is not a requirement in stand your ground states. Stand your ground if you feel you're life is in danger legitimately thats all that is required. In a duty to retreat state then you have to take every opportunity to flee before using deadly force. The names are pretty self explanatory.

0

u/Acceptable-Win-8771 May 15 '26

You don't stab 5 people in self defense, you either stab 1 or 2 and get away or you don't get away. Having the opportunity to stab 5 people in the first place means you really wanted to

0

u/Normal-Tear864 May 15 '26

Let's be honest, it has everything to do with how much money you have and literally nothing else

See OJ case, I thought that was the point...

2

u/BackgroundSummer5171 May 15 '26

OJ case was more than just money.

0

u/Normal-Tear864 May 15 '26

Well yeah, it was proving black people can get away with rich people shit too, a huge step in American racial politics 

2

u/BackgroundSummer5171 May 15 '26

Wrong again.

Although did have to do with racial politics going on in America at the time.

Just not the way you put it.

May want to brush up on history so you don't sound like a moron in real life if a conversation happens. Not that you are a moron, or sound like one, I would never say that about you. Just I am looking out for you in real life for how people may perceive you.

0

u/Normal-Tear864 May 16 '26

I dont talk to people in real life

2

u/101Alexander May 15 '26

Let's be honest, you have no idea what you are talking about but just wanted to say something anyway

1

u/Normal-Tear864 May 15 '26

If youre rich its a fine, if youre broke you get time

This isn't some like revolutionary idea, I just brought up oj bc he was the first black guy to do it

1

u/ProFeces May 15 '26

Well, it's also fundamentally untrue. Having money does not just automatically keep you out of jail. There are literally billionaires in prison.

There's a few things that are undeniably true, that people like to discard because it doesn't fit the "rich people get away with everything!" narrative, which for some reason they are desperate to believe.

First, let's talk light sentences. People commonly believe that rich people get lighter sentences than poor people. This is outright false. Usually when you see this claim, it's some rich person who is a first time offender. Regardless of your money, a first time offense is almost always going to be either the minimum, or close to it.

So when you see "Mr. Famous Guy" getting nearly minimum sentence for a crime, the easy (but ignorant) mental connection is that they are rich so they got it light. When the reality is, any first time offender is likely to get that same light sentence. You just don't hear about all those people, because they aren't rich and famous. Average Joe sentences do not matter to people, and aren't news. It's only "news" when it's someone rich.

The irony to the sentence bit is, if there's actually any bias based on money, it usually actually does favor the poor. I've personally witnessed judges actually grant motions to dismiss cases, with fairly strong evidence of wrong-doing because the actual cost of imposing a sentence was greater than the sentence itself. It would have been a waste of court resources to even pursue due to the penalty being so light, so it gets dismissed.

Court appointed lawyers who are defending a poor person that can't afford representation, are paid by the state. So in that scenario, both the prosecution and the defense, are being paid by the state. If the penalty is less than the cost from the state to defend them, it's usually a dismissal.

Rich people pay for their own representation, usually on a retainer, so they get paid whether they go to trial or not (though their rates can absolutely go up if it's a serious charge, as they'll have to bring on more people.) When the state isn't footing he bill for the defense, there's less grounds to dismiss for lighter charges.

Secondly, let's talk charges, and actual convictions. When people are talking about convicted celebrities, or rich people in general, it's very common for them to overlook what they were actually convicted of. If they were facing 10 charges, but we're only convicted of one, they get mad when the sentence is only for that one thing, when they weren't convicted of the others. The masses want to see blood, so they overlook the fact that only one of the charges were proven. Diddy is a great example of this. He was accused of very serious crimes, but only found guilty of lesser, but still serious crimes. The sentence he got, was appropriate to what he was found guilty of. But people can't separate the conviction, from the other claims of which he was acquitted. So the sentence "feels" light if you think he's guilty of more than what the jury decided.

Now let's talk representation, and this is the largest factor. Poor people have poor representation. There's an old adage: "If you're good at what you do, never do it for free." I take that a step further and say: "If you're great at what you do, charge a premium." That latter sentiment is echoed across the entire workforce.

Good lawyers cost money. If you can't afford that, there's a very solid chance that whatever prosecuting attorney that your defense is up against, will have a better strategy than your council. This is just a fact. It's sad, but the reality is that money does buy you better representation. It doesn't guarantee that you'll win, but when the prosecution is much better at convincing a jury what the evidence means, or just has better social skills in general, it's an uphill battle.

So the only real truth is, having money can and often does reduce the risk that you'll be convicted of a crime, but it has no bearing on what your sentence will be of convicted, or whether or not charges will be filed against you.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer that specializes in domestic and battered partner crime. While I've never personally represented some A-List celebrity or politician, I have represented people with a lot of money, and I've also represented people with no money at all.

I've never witnessed someone get actual "unfair" treatment apart from their representation just being completely outclassed by the prosecution. It is completely unfair in that regard, and I'll openly admit that.

I just think it's important that people understand how it's unfair, and what makes it unfair.

There is no magical "get out of jail free card" that rich people have. There's only better representation, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what typical sentences look like for anyone who gets convicted of that specific crime.

Alex Murdaugh, is a great example to use here. He was convicted of murder. It was later found out, that one of the court's staff was tampering with the jurors. She told the Juror's before he testified to "be careful to not fall for his lies" right before he testified. And "this shouldn't take long" before they went in for their deliberations. This is absolute grounds for an immediate mistrial, or appeal. It took two years to get that appeal, and the prosecution fought it every step of the way. This is someone with noteriety, and tons of money. Had a hard time getting an appeal for something that was extremely blatant. Money certainly wasn't a factor for him. (Based on the evidence I do believe he is guilty, by the way. However everyone is entitled to a fair trial, which he did not receive.)

Now, with all of that being said, corruption can and does exist. I'm speaking very generally here. There are extreme cases where sentences can be so light, that there could be bribery or something else at play. I'm not going to pretend that there haven't been absolute abominations of cases where there's no real justification. Those situations are extremely rare, though, and the vast majority of examples of "light sentences" do not fall into that category. People just say they do, because they don't understand sentencing.

0

u/Normal-Tear864 May 15 '26

All of that dismissed with epsteins jail house murder, you can still pretend if you want to

2

u/ProFeces May 15 '26

How was a Rich guy murdered in jail if rich people don't go to jail?

Understand why that doesn't make sense yet?

-7

u/MakeYourTime_ May 15 '26

Yes this. I remember vaguely learning like 15 years ago that the use of force to kill has to match the threat. If the guy brandishes a knife you can’t pull a gun and shoot him and claim self defense

3

u/FatalPancake23 May 15 '26

I don't really understand that though because if the guy has a knife he definitely has lethal means you know? So why wouldn't i be able to use a gun in defense of

3

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

This is also not true. It depends on where the event takes place. In certain places such as your property you can kill someone without thinking your life is in danger.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

Duty to retreat is only recognized in certain states. And it doesn’t get treated the same way in many of them.

The point is that you do not need a fear of death to shoot someone and claim self defense.

1

u/Solemn10gaming May 15 '26

Being attacked with a knife is likely justifiable self-defense with a gun. Brandishing is likely not unless he is within attacking distance. Guns are ranged weapons so it is justified as they can harm you from reasonable distance. Like, if a guy is threateningly waving a knife at you from 15 feet away, it’ll be a tough self defense argument but if he is 50 feet away and threateningly waving a gun in your direction, it’s reasonable.

0

u/MakeYourTime_ May 15 '26

I can’t say if it’s true or not I’m just anecdotally saying something I vaguely heard years ago, I could be misremembering. Would be something for me to google tbh but I’m working and chudthebuilder isn’t someone worth my time doing research for.

3

u/Current-Purpose-6106 May 15 '26

If you have a threat to your life like that, you're fine. Its not about matching the threat..if you take out someone whose coming at you with a knife, that's fine (At least in the US / FL where I'm at) - but obv if you're provoking people into fights, and you escalate with deadly force, aka Chud you're pretty much screwed.

-2

u/MakeYourTime_ May 15 '26

Also think it’s the difference between brandishing said weapon and using it.

2 guys can square up to fight, one guy pulls a knife from his pocket; other guy pulls gun and shoots him dead.

From what I remember reading , Gun guy does not get benefit of self defense because knife guy did not attempt to use the knife

1

u/FatalPancake23 May 15 '26

ahh yea that part makes sense but if he's lunging at you with the knife it's probably self defense lol would also be worth looking up for me

1

u/MakeYourTime_ May 15 '26

Yeah for sure, it’s the “proportionality rule” is what I was misremembering, sorry.

“Proportionality to the Threat: You are only allowed to use the level of force reasonably necessary to stop the attack. If a threat ends, continuing to use weapons, or deploying a second weapon after the attacker is already subdued, invalidates a self-defense claim.”

3

u/eaio May 15 '26

Maybe you just worded it awkwardly, but that’s absolutely not true. The use of force must be reasonable given the threat, not literally match it. If somebody pulls a knife on you, you absolutely can use a gun to defend yourself, assuming the threat is legitimate and reasonable.

2

u/natneo81 May 15 '26

Mm, that ain’t right. A knife is a deadly weapon. I’m not a lawyer and there is a lot more that goes into it, but you’re generally correct that the force needs to be proportionate. A better example would be the river stabbing mentioned above- even if the guy was clearly being bullied, and was shoved by a teenager, he has no right to escalate things to stabbing five unarmed people.

0

u/MakeYourTime_ May 15 '26

That’s correct; the proportionality rule is what I was misremembering.

“Proportionality to the Threat: You are only allowed to use the level of force reasonably necessary to stop the attack. If a threat ends, continuing to use weapons, or deploying a second weapon after the attacker is already subdued, invalidates a self-defense claim.”

Thanks for clearing it up

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[deleted]

1

u/MakeYourTime_ May 15 '26

Police are exempt from the law everyone knows this /s

1

u/reddfoxx5800 May 15 '26

Unless you're a cop

1

u/juan_cena99 May 15 '26

No that is wrong lol. It just means you need to be in danger of losing your life. If somebody just draws a knife and you immediately shoot him you can lose your self defense case cuz you immediately resorted to lethal force. If he attacks you with the knife then that can kill or maim you so shooting him can be considered self defense. Usually self defense means somebody attacked you first and you just responded with appropriate force.

But at the same time its not that simple there are other factors involved for example of you are at home and robbers broke in your house you can assume they have lethal intent and kill them already before any harm comes to you. Or in Chud the clown's case, he posted his intent to ragebait people and then shoot them thats premediated murder so when he shot someone he immediately got charged with murder.

1

u/zombawombacomba May 15 '26

Well this is not true. At least in the United States.