Race baiting

Social media is abuzz over some streamer in Tennessee named Dalton Eatherly who goes by the handle of “Chud the Builder.” I must confess this is the first I have heard of him. Still, he is known for posting streaming content some call “racist,” although you know how low the bar is to be called a racist these days. I tried to find some of his content, but all I could find were stories about current events, and people complaining about him being a racist. So, I have no opinion on whether or not his content is racist.

Racist content or not, I think it is boorish and rather childish to run around trying to piss people off so you can film the reaction and make money or fame.

Be that as it may, the current events are lacking in details, but it appears to be essentially like this: A black man saw Eatherly streaming and asked him to walk away, which he reportedly did. The man later walked up to Eatherly and started a second confrontation. The man mentioned having PTSD, then warned: “You start saying all that chimp out shit to me and I’mma hit you.” The man punched Eatherly and began repeatedly hitting him. Eatherly then shot the man, the man kept attacking him, so Eatherly shot him at least once more. During the struggle, one of the bullets struck Eatherly himself.

At the end of the day, Eatherly was charged with a list of crimes including attempted murder.

There are many people, including quite a few on the right and in self defense circles, who claim Eatherly was in the wrong because he is known for posting racist comments, and those comments are considered “fighting words.” That is incorrect. Just because a person says inflammatory things at some point does not grant people who heard him in the past the legal right to physically attack you for the rest of your life. That’s not what fighting words mean.

Remember Charlie Kirk, and how the left kept attempting to incite the right by pointing at their necks? Or say a black man once called someone a cracker, does that mean I get to beat him? Of course not. Eatherly doesn’t forfeit his right to self defense simply because he called someone a nigger or a chimp, whether he did so in the past or even in the immediate seconds before the attack. Mere words don’t justify a physical attack unless they rise to fighting words, but that is a fairly high bar to clear, as discussed above.

Legal Standard for Incitement

The controlling precedent is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot punish speech advocating force or law violation unless it is:

1. Directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and
2. Likely to incite or produce such action.

Abstract advocacy, inflammatory rhetoric, or offensive language—even racist speech like that at a KKK rally using the word “nigger” and calling for “revengeance” against Black people and Jews—was protected. according to the court. The Court struck down a broader Ohio law criminalizing advocacy of violence.

Someone using language that others find offensive or cause emotional distress, or potential for unrest does not qualify. Courts protect “the thought that we hate” precisely because the First Amendment prioritizes robust debate over shielding feelings. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech. Someone saying “Puppies are cute” doesn’t need free speech protection. Someone speaking things making people uncomfortable does, even if that speech is unpopular, especially if that speech is unpopular.

A narrower exception involves “fighting words” defined as personally abusive epithets directed at an individual that, by their very utterance, tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). However, this has been significantly narrowed:

• Courts repeatedly hold that racial slurs, including the N-word, are not fighting words per se. Context matters heavily (e.g., tone, intent to provoke a fight, likelihood of immediate violence).
• Examples: Someone loudly calling a Black man ‘nigger’ while trying to start a fight could qualify in one case, but yelling it without evidence of imminent violence or actual breach of peace does not. What matters is that the person saying it was trying to provoke a fight, and not merely being insulting.
• Yelling slurs is widely viewed as rude, inflammatory, or bigoted, and it can have serious social, professional, or civil repercussions. But legally equating it to incitement to violence would gut the First Amendment, as affirmed across decades of Supreme Court rulings. Context always determines outcomes in edge cases.

Hate speech, slurs, and bigoted expression are generally protected unless they cross into true threats, targeted harassment, or the narrow incitement/fighting words categories.

Proportionality

However, once the physical confrontation began, the question becomes whether Eatherly reasonably believed he faced imminent death or serious bodily injury, and whether shooting was a proportionate response. There aren’t enough facts out there to determine that at this point.

In my opinion, this entire case hinges upon proportionality. Tennessee’s Stand Your Ground law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611), like most states, allows deadly force only if the person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or certain other harms.

• A single punch or minor scuffle generally does not justify deadly force.
• Factors that strengthen a claim: Continued attack after the defender is down, multiple strikes (“ground and pound”), size/strength disparity, weapons involved, or signs the attacker would not stop (e.g., the victim continuing to hit after being shot).
• Juries assess this objectively: Would a reasonable person in Eatherly’s position fear serious injury?

Some accounts say Fox continued hitting even after being shot. If that was indeed the case, that could strengthen Eatherly’s case for self defense.

Critical gaps for proportionality:

• How sustained or severe was the beating? One punch + a few follow-ups vs. a prolonged assault that put Eatherly at risk of being knocked unconscious or stomped?
• Positions during the shots (standing, on the ground, distance after initial punch)?
• Did the man stop after the first shot, or was he still actively attacking?
• Any video evidence (courthouse surveillance, bystander, or Eatherly’s own stream) showing the full sequence.

If evidence shows Eatherly was actively being beaten in a way that created a credible fear of serious injury (e.g., head strikes, unable to disengage, larger/stronger attacker with PTSD-related agitation noted), self-defense is viable. If it appears more like a fistfight where Eatherly quickly resorted to a gun and fired multiple rounds, conviction on a lesser charge (aggravated assault) or full conviction becomes more likely.

There are not many facts out there, but there are plenty of people running around saying that because Eatherly said racist things in the past, he deserved to be punched, and is not allowed to defend himself from the attack. That’s false, and can’t be the law, or else we are all open to attack for any offense we may have caused someone to take by something we may or may not have said at some point in the past.

The case will hinge on the seconds of physical violence and whether shooting met the proportionality/necessity test. More evidence (especially video) will be decisive. As of now, it’s too early for a confident prediction. As usual, this case will rely upon all of the evidence, and right now the details are very thin.