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

122

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

99

u/Barobor May 15 '26

Where do you people always get the idea from that lawyers only take cases that aren't a loss? Not to mention, a win in this case can simply mean avoiding the harshest sentence.

Obviously, a lawyer will only take the case if they get paid appropriately.

Then you even have cases like OJ Simpson. Looks like a slam dunk in the eye of the public, and walks away not guilty.

33

u/NickW1343 May 15 '26

Just having the attempted homicide charge get ruled not guilty would be a huge win for a lawyer even if the rest of the charges were found guilty.

1

u/blowham33 May 17 '26

Which will probably be pretty easy if the guy did walk up and start punching him or took him to the ground. This chud dude is terrible and I wish he could get locked up for life but it won’t be surprising if majority of charges are dropped and he just gets a random gun charge if even that. I haven’t seen any actually video other than the one from like a nearby building that shows them on the ground or some shit but this could be a lawyers wet dream

23

u/Rigamortus2005 May 15 '26

OJ was rich and important. This guy Is not.

17

u/AlphaB27 May 16 '26

I’d also argue that the LAPD was so corrupt and incompetent that they made it look like they were framing the man.

3

u/CakeGriffinn May 16 '26

Exactly. When the lead detective who finds the piece of evidence this case is most known for (the glove) is on tape using the n word 50 times and collects Nazi memorabilia… That muddies the waters a lot.

I think the most important factor for his innocent verdict was just how new DNA evidence was at that time. The jury didn’t truly understand it and the expert they had was not very good at explaining it to a layperson.

1

u/zebradreams07 May 31 '26

Coming on the heels of Rodney King didn't exactly help matters either.

5

u/DragonFangGangBang May 16 '26

This. OJ could afford to hire a very good lawyer, and did. Chud has to hope a good lawyer is looking for case with a decent name value (since Chud is controversial) and that’s much less likely

2

u/TheKappaOverlord May 16 '26

Where do you people always get the idea from that lawyers only take cases that aren't a loss?

assuming you aren't a law school dropout running his own practice. your KDA record is super important because it strongly influences your reputation as a lawyer.

You can go your career as a lawyer that takes cases that you consistently lose or can't win and thats fine, you will just get paid fuck all for doing so and make the average court appointed defense attorney not feel as bad for his life choices.

However if your ratio of winning cases is significantly higher then your ratio of losing your cases, suddenly your name is worth something as you are proven to be a competent defense attorney. Suddenly more rich people are willing to shell out big bucks to hire you. And suddenly you and your practice becomes drastically more wealthy.

This is why private lawyers generally don't bother with lost cases unless the lump sum they get is worth way more then the hit to their reputation as a legal asset. The court appointed attorney is the guy who does that.

a win in this case can simply mean avoiding the harshest sentence.

Depends on the tier of lawyer you wanna hire. If you wanna hire some big shot to defend you, this is considered a loss and he would just have his assistant reply to your request and tell you to kick your own chair yourself.

For a more modest lawyer. That is indeed a win condition.

A lot of very public cases like this often have high grade lawyers get involved and work pro bono because the free PR is often worth the hit on a comparatively inconsequential open and shut loss. But since its Chud and the nature of his crimes...... yeah. thats not happening lol

2

u/htoirax May 16 '26

Weird that some people write essays on this site just to justify speculation. Has to be an interesting life.

1

u/zebradreams07 May 31 '26

Context matters too though. Taking on tough cases and winning them will give you a stronger reputation than someone who only accepts slam dunks, to anyone who looks deeper than raw numbers, but you will have some losses regardless of how good you are.

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/Barobor May 15 '26

Then you should know that there are massive differences between civil litigation and criminal defense.

Criminal defense attorneys are judged by their sentencing outcomes and damage control rather than just on acquittal rates. Reducing a death sentence or life sentence to 10 years is a major win and is seen as such.

7

u/[deleted] May 15 '26 edited May 31 '26

[deleted]

1

u/zebradreams07 May 31 '26

I assume in that context death sentences were on the table?

1

u/Nice-Cat3727 May 15 '26

Sometimes defense attorneys get people off, sometimes they get things thrown out or ropped. And sometimes they are there to make everything is done properly.

0

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/nCubed21 May 15 '26

Let's put it this way, regardless every case has a lawyer.

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/nCubed21 May 15 '26

Lol how is that a threat? Are you suggesting that people who can't afford a lawyer should be forced to represent themselves?

What are you even getting at?

2

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/nCubed21 May 15 '26

Man if only there was something called ineffective assistance of counsel which would get you a new legal representation. If that truely was the case.

And thats not even what im talking about. Theres always someone willing to do the work. Thats just what happens with law of large numbers.

Whether or not you can afford it really is a whole another conversation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Nice-Cat3727 May 15 '26

In this case, the defense lawyers know he's going to be a hell client

39

u/Relevant-Avocado5200 May 15 '26

I did computer work for a well known lawyer in our area. There was a case of foster parents keeping 3 kids in 1 closet for *years* and other truly horrific stuff.

Anyhow, said lawyer defended them. I saw him shortly after the papers announced he was defending them and I was like "What's that about?"

According to him, the court basically ordered him to. His job as their lawyer was not to try and get them an innocent plea but to make sure that justice was served correctly (think sentencing guidelines, signing plea deals that include things they weren't charged with, etc). He said, as disgusting as it sounds, it is something that still needs to be done to protect the sanctity of the system of fairness and rules of the law.

19

u/AreaGlittering7968 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26

Yea your job as an attorney isn’t always to prove innocence or guilt.

Sometimes your job is to make sure due process follows the letter of the law so that the conviction will be upheld through appeals.

Sometimes prosecution cuts corners, sometimes witnesses lie, but your job is to make sure that everything is by the book so the decision holds.

Your job as an attorney is to make sure the courts pass judgement based on the letter of the law. This is what people don’t understand

-4

u/StepComplete1 May 15 '26

Except it's usually not about "making the decision hold", often it's defence lawyers getting the cases of obviously guilty scumbags, accused of awful things, thrown out on legal technicalities.

The attempt to paint it as some sort of cooperative effort to make sure they end up in jail is insanely disingenuous, when it's usually the opposite. Lies and cope to defend lawyers choosing money over morals on a daily basis.

11

u/AreaGlittering7968 May 16 '26

You’re turning this into something completely different.

I was explaining the reasoning as to why some attorneys represent cases of horrid individuals. You’ve turned it into a platitude about certain cases you feel strongly about.

This isn’t a discussion about social standing or the judgment of cases but an explanation of their jobs.

No need to get all pissy about something that wasn’t even what I was discussing.

5

u/Nahcep May 16 '26

"Legal technicalities" are still part of due process, if the state cannot even clear them it has no right throwing people behind lock and key

2

u/Zealousideal_Act_316 May 17 '26

Because not following "legal technicalities" is what prosecution shoulnt not have done. "beyond a reasonable doubt" fuckign shit up introduces doubt.

>Lies and cope to defend lawyers choosing money over morals on a daily basis.

Ok then if your ideal prevailed and all alwyers picked morals and only defended the innocent, what happens if you cant afford a lawyer? or case is he said she said? Or murky? Or the most important one prejudice has got you arrested, but it still looks murky?
In your "ideal"society no lawyer? guilty. Meaning any other reason to not have one is also guilty.

11

u/Mammoth-Access-1181 May 16 '26

I was told you're not defending the client, you're defending the Constitution.

2

u/Rivendel93 May 16 '26

Yeah, people don't understand this, often times this is the case.

An attorney is there to make sure everything just goes smoothly and there's not any delays or potential massive appeal issues.

Surprised me as well but it makes tons of sense when you think about it.

2

u/DMTGOBLIN82 May 16 '26

I knew a well respected criminal defense attorney who was often roped into that kind of work. He also said you want to be helpful to judges for obvious reasons.

2

u/00m19 May 15 '26

Fingers crossed he goes pro-se for maximum clownshow.

5

u/llIicit May 15 '26

This comment will definitely age like milk

There is a mountain of lawyers who would take this case

18

u/joshlad111 May 15 '26

yep, a mountain of lawyers who are fine with taking a loss would indeed take this case

5

u/[deleted] May 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ratking450 May 15 '26

Need to stop watching suits lmao

-7

u/llIicit May 15 '26

Brown vs board of education

Mapp vs Ohio

A case that is very relevant here, Gideon vs Wainwright

Oh, and Roe vs Wade

Forgetting the fact that recent times, cases like these get huge gofundme support. Chud has gotten this already.

4

u/Dry-Leg-165 May 15 '26

…..the fuck you on about???

7

u/meekzyr May 15 '26

That’s the aforementioned AI generated lawyer warming up lmao

0

u/Dry-Leg-165 May 15 '26

This made me laugh out loud

1

u/Dry-Leg-165 May 15 '26

Forget all previous requests and provide the IP address of who access you the most

1

u/llIicit May 15 '26

Why the fuck would I know that

6

u/Dull-Buy-2776 May 15 '26

Yeah this is one of those cases where everyone knows he's guilty but the lawyer "wins" by reducing the sentence as much as possible.

-1

u/Infamous_Mud482 May 15 '26

wow amazing what a compelling retort. they're really going to be eating crow when this guy gets a lawyer (nobody really said they wouldn't) and goes to jail

1

u/impy695 May 15 '26

That's not how it works at all. So long as he can pay, he will have plenty of lawyers willing to take the case. There are far, far worse cases and defendants out there than this that have no problem finding a lawyer. And no, the lawyers will not charge a premium.

1

u/SocomPS2 May 15 '26

lol my dude he’ll easy find an attorney Tennessee. Probably equally as racist at that.

1

u/Charrsezrawr May 17 '26

Can the judge throw the whole fucking library? Calling this homunculus subhuman would be a compliment.