MR. OBVIOUS
25.6K posts

MR. OBVIOUS
@ObviousRises
Commentary, News and Dank Memes. Official fan account. Follow/Subscribe. YouTube: https://t.co/DXzWPM3URc













By arresting Chud they basically just created 271,000 more of him.




Since making this one and done thread that was supposed draw attention to a minor using the forum, I've been getting requests in DMs to cover the user that outed Sigismund. This request has been sent to me over and over, and today i'm finally going to talk about NaggotFigger.













Na you rushed to do damage control and added a 2nd blur bar by mistake due to you rushing to do damage control, an thought to use that to hide the mass amount of downvotes and comments calling you out! Damage control by a retard who lied and double down on his lies.



Let me explain why asmongold is right that Chud The Builder acted in Self-Defense. First lets make one thing clear: Chudthebuilder is 100% an asshole streamer and provocateur. THAT BEING SAID. When he was attacked he was walking away. The black guy punched him in the back of the head (mind you this is the thinnest part of the skull) punches to the head can be (and have been) 100% lethal, so he defended himself, shot the guy ONCE (I would have mag dumped) even tho the black dude (despite being shot) literally kept punching and fighting him—what do you think his intentions were if he had not been shot? He would have tried to kill Chud, already that's Self-Defense. BUT WAIT—DERE'S MORE! A lot of people are throwing around legal terms they don't understand, "provocation" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free-card its literally an legal argument, one usually to talk down a charge (like assault which the black guy did) to a lower level, let me explain why this is ultimately a self-defense situation. Chud was attacked, AFTER, he was actively walking away (Chud also never committed any violence) in legal terms this is known as de-escalation and it is the GOLD STANDARD for Judges to determine fault, do you know why its NOT provocation in this case? Even if he was saying mean words or asking "Are you gonna chimp out?" (tbh lets be real words still don't justify violence) the LEGAL DEFINITION of provocation basically requires that a person acts in the HEAT OF THE MOMENT. Had the black guy attacked him WHILE Chud was talking shit (to his face) THAT would be provocation but he didn't, he didn't act on impulse—he waited for Chud to have his back turned/his guard down so he could sucker punch him (like a weak pathetic coward) that shows premeditation and intent. Now lets talk about reasonable force/restraint, both of these matter legally, A LOT. Despite having every right to fear for his life (he had no way of knowing if he would be gang assaulted) he defended himself by firing ONE TIME, he showed both reasonable force to defend himself and restraint, despite the black guy assaulting him (assaulting him) the entire time—both are important in establishing Self-Defense. (depending on the state) Let me sum this up. Words are not illegal. Its called Free Speech for a reason. It doesn't give you legal justification to do violence, but even if we pretended it did, Chud was the victim the moment he walked and got attacked from behind. NOTHING. ELSE. MATTERS. (including any previous social media posts) because of the circumstances, I actually a wrote a whole post about Black culture and their version of "Izzat" very recently, and why they often turn and resort to such lethal violence. #1 thing from that post: If you have seen ANY clips online of fights in the black community you know that they do not show restraint, they stomp on heads after someone is knocked out/basically show ZERO restraint. THE ONLY PEOPLE SAYING THAT CHUD SHOULDN'T HAVE SHOT OVER A PUNCH LITERALLY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT BLACK CULTURE AND WOULD 100% DIE IF THEY FOLLOWED THEIR OWN ADVICE—IRONICALLY THESE ARE SHELTERED LIBERALS/NEOTARDS WHO HAVE NEVER EVEN HAD A SINGLE BLACK FRIEND AND PROBABLY GREW UP IN A RICH/WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD. Is Chud an asshole? Yes. Is he Racist? Probably. And although I can sympathize with his frustration (black-on-white crime is INSANELY high, 5x higher that white-on-black crime, 25x higher per capita) he's COMPLETELY unjustified in treating all black people the same—believe it or not, not every person of ANY group, are all bad. But here's the thing, being an ass, saying mean words, hell even be "le reecist" IS. NOT. ILLEGAL, this isn't the UK where recently (100% true story) police literally ARRESTED and handcuffed a DYING MAN who was BLEEDING to death after a Sikh (Indian) migrant claimed (didn't prove) the white man called him a slur—he literally died because they arrested him instead of calling an ambulance. Obviously they will 100% try to make this a political/race thing and throw the book at him because he's white (meanwhile they keep releasing black repeat offenders who attack/SA/murder white people) but make no mistake, if Chud goes to prison this sets a HORRIFIC precedent—basically anyone is allowed to kill anyone over mean words, just lie and say you were called a slur, I hate to use this phrase (it makes me uncomfortable) but if you wanted an actual "race" war, that is how you get one. at the end of the day asmongold is right, if someone tries to physically assault you, you should be able to shoot them, regardless of race or mean words, its that simple










