Kaleb H Hester

@OGICEY @jasonwhitlock Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. You're in charge of yourself, irrespective of whatever words are spoken by others. Take some fucking responsibility.

@CJGRISHAM Conservatives? Do you mean populist authoritarians? I don't think we have actual conservatives anymore.

Why do we conservatives, who claim to hate big government and the deep state, blindly worship law enforcement, the protectors and defenders of big Government and the deep state?!

@RepJackKimble Instead, we have corrupt pieces of shit. I'll take the idiots instead.

Just a friendly warning. We don’t even make $200k per year in Congress despite working nearly 140 days. If we aren’t properly compensated, a lot of us will go to the private sector and you will be left with some real idiots in Congress.

@TheBrancaShow It's a problem that the law recognizes violence as a "reasonable" reaction to speech.

This is not a line of reasoning that's helpful to Chud. If Chud knew he was going to get a violent response from Foxx by Foxx being triggered, that sounds precisely like the kind of intentional provocation that Tennessee law explicitly says loses Chud the legal justification of self-defense.

@TheBrancaShow The first amendment doesn't exist to protect popular speech.

@libsoftiktok Back the blue?

This is INSANE Henry Nowak, a university student in the UK, was allegedly fatally stabbed by Vikrum Digwa, a Sikh man carrying an 8-inch ceremonial knife. When police arrived, Digwa reportedly accused Henry of "racial abuse," leading police to handcuff HENRY while he was bleeding out. Henry then succumbed to his wounds and died. WTF is going on in the UK???

@JeffBlakley2 @dom_lucre Who's obtuse?

Surely you've heard the phrase "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." And 1A rights only prohibit the government from abridging your speech, not private citizens. And it does not "erase" his ability to defend himself, but he's likely going to have a problem trying to justify immediately escalating to lethal force during the verbal altercation - if he had fought the guy with proportionate force, then he probably would be in good shape. At this point, I can only assume you are purposely being obtuse and am muting you.

There are still 0 peaceful protests for ChudTheBuilder. All those people hyped him up won’t even mobilize outside their homes for him. While his enemies like me will be sleeping another peaceful night inside their home safe and sound. Thank god for good decisions.

@JeffBlakley2 @dom_lucre One could apply your asinine reasoning to anti-abortion activists, who are physically attacked regularly.

Not what I'm saying - another swing and a miss. It means you won't be able to claim you didn't know what would happen when you predict it would happen, which can undermine a "self defense" claim. It has nothing to do with his 1A right to say it, but his self defense rights to justify escalating lethal force to defend himself from an attack he reasonably knew would happen in response. Also, the police claim that they have surveillance footage showing chud face the guy and draw his weapon before the physical fight started, immediately escalating to brandishing an illegal weapon in a situation where the law prohibits him to make a self defense claim - it appears he's in pretty deep shit.

@Slatzism Back the blue?

“police arrest man who is bleeding to death because the stabber claimed he was racist” its literally impossible to satirize the UK anymore. even the most extreme, hamfisted memes are just real things that actually happen now

@BelStaxz @AverageIowaGuy @lexboray @nytimes You're willing to sacrifice competency for the comfort of familiarity. You've got your priorities all backward.

@AverageIowaGuy @lexboray @nytimes I did. I know yes, it shouldn't matter...but I felt more comfortable that the OB who did my emergency c-section was Haitian. It was an unexpected surgery, I was terrified, hearing some words of comfort from my own culture eased my anxiety and the surgery went great.

Breaking News: The Justice Department accused the Yale School of Medicine of discriminating against white and Asian applicants. It's the second time in eight days that the Trump administration had targeted a major medical school over admissions policies. nyti.ms/42B6v20

@lexboray @nytimes Lol. No, the answer is no. Merit or zero trust. Balancing "representation"? Are you really this stupid?

@nytimes The real issue isn’t just admissions, it’s whether medical schools can balance merit, representation, and patient outcomes without losing public trust.

@JeffBlakley2 @dom_lucre If one could imagine being attacked by a moron for saying something, it should be illegal to say. Great argument.

Well, considering chud predicted his antics would provoke someone to "chimp out" and he would kill them - I would think that's an easy one to argue in his case. Kinda hard to say you didn't know it would provoke someone to do such a thing when you tweeted it would happen in the "series finale" a week prior. I imagine it would be up to a jury of one's peers to decide - most people, who aren't obtuse, can imagine some behavior or words that would probably get them hit in certain situations.

@JeffBlakley2 @dom_lucre Good luck compiling an objective list of speech which rises to the level of "provocation"

People have fought over words and insults (directed at them, or their wives/girlfriends/kids/mother) for all of known human history. There's a lot of history of men settling their differences with fisticuffs. Given human beings long history of fisticuffs, imagine the government doesn't want someone to go around purposely trying to provoke people, perhaps a group they don't like, into taking a swing at them so that they can shoot them under the guise of "self defense." Because that's not really the spirit of "self defense," is it - that's just murder. And is purposely trying to provoke people into fights what you'd call "civilized society" - sure, the person responding to a verbal attack with a physical attack isn't what we'd call "civilized" but a lot of people here defend the provocateur as if that's the "civilized society" they're trying to achieve.

@tigerwoodyyy @Wooptydoop @dom_lucre You most certainly can. It's a question of reasonable fear for one's safety.

@KalebHHester1 @Wooptydoop @dom_lucre Agreed, but I also understand how constantly antagonizing someone can create a physical response. Go insult someone’s wife or say something sexual, pretty sure a physical response. Chud wouldn’t be in this situation if he didn’t shoot. You can’t shoot a guy over a punch.

@JeffBlakley2 @dom_lucre Which just amounts to the state endorsing violence as a response to speech. I'm not particularly versed on that element of self defense law, or any relevant case law, but it does sound as if it may be enforced in court as you described.

Yes...and, in fact, chud did foresee someone attacking him and him shooting and killing said person (his "series finale" tweet, which the prosecution will probably blow up and place center stage in front of the jury). And, if one is familiar with the laws that limit a self defense claim in situations where one provokes another to a fight, then escalating to lethal force in response to someone hitting you in a situation you provoked might not go the way you think it will (there are conditions whereby you can reassert your ability to claim self defense). Sure, the person throwing the first punch may catch a charge, but that doesn't mean the provocateur is free and clear.

@tigerwoodyyy @Wooptydoop @dom_lucre We all choose how to react to the words and actions of others. Violence isn't a legitimate response to speech, no matter how rude. The entire contention pertains to the legality of the parties involved.

@KalebHHester1 @Wooptydoop @dom_lucre Everyone online. “Why are people getting upset over a word. It’s just a word.” Well words have meanings. It’s not about legality. You go around insulting and antagonizing people, what do you think is the outcome of that? You can’t antagonize and then play innocent victim.

@JeffBlakley2 @dom_lucre I guess you didn't have a point, other than to claim that speech can "provoke someone to violence" as though people aren't responsible for, or able to control how they respond to words. Ridiculous.

@KalebHHester1 @dom_lucre Highlight the part where I said it is "justified." Legal/illegal, moral/immoral, don't always line up with reality. I know people post a lot of ignorant shit on the internet, but you're abusing the privilege.

@tigerwoodyyy @Wooptydoop @dom_lucre Who's pretending it's unheard of? The relevant question is whether it's legal.

@KalebHHester1 @Wooptydoop @dom_lucre I was under the impression you didn’t understand what he was saying. There is one thing I don’t understand, why do you guys think getting physical over words is some unheard of thing? Pretty sure if you go around antagonizing/insulting people, there’s a good chance that happens.

@GBNT1952 @DanOvercast Lol. You're equating speech with violence. That's as bedwetting, commie leftist as it gets.

@DanOvercast That’s the difference between me and you: if someone is talking shit, they better be ready to back it up if hands are thrown. We’ve created a nation of pussies that think they can say whatever they want and not get punched in the face. Some lefty bullshit.

I have consistently called out criminals regardless of race. I have also called out violent black culture and how detrimental it has been to our society. There are some serious problems in our society that need to fixed, but people like Chud only make it worse. Race is never the first thing I see. I judge people based on their actions. We need strong black men to stand up against the culture of violence and the culture that leads to high rates of single motherhood that helps push these issues. We will never get there by going out in the streets and calling black people racial slurs. Why is this so hard for people to understand?