𝘿𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙤𝙣 𝙀𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝘽𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙟𝙖𝙞𝙡. According to Dalton, jail staff took his Bible and have refused to return it. No explanation has been provided for why it was taken or why he is being denied access to it. 𝙃𝙚𝙧𝙚’𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙨: “I was in a solitary cell for the first 3 weeks with nothing but a Bible. They moved me from that cell and put me in this new cell, but for some reason took my Bible in the move. they gave me this tablet that crashes every three seconds and dies within a few hours. Not allowed to charge it during the day so I’m greatly limited to my access to the scriptures not to mention the user experience of being unable to navigate through the pages. Scrolling through thousands of pages of a PDF file Bible is simply insufficient and basically unusable. I’ve asked very kindly and politely, even offering to pay whatever amount they want for a copy of the physical Bible that I for some reason had access to for weeks, but am being denied. the admin Capt Oakes is sending me ALL CAPS replies with clear frustration and vindictiveness indicating an obvious malicious interference with my religious studies. I have had zero reports written on me and I’ve been kind and polite to all staff my entire time in here. I have been getting closer to God and studying the scripture all day everyday for the last 25 days. I have no idea why they decided to take my Bible. Capt Oakes replying “𝙔𝙊𝙐 𝙃𝘼𝙑𝙀 𝘼 𝙏𝘼𝘽𝙇𝙀𝙏 𝙏𝙃𝘼𝙏𝙎 𝙒𝙃𝙔. 𝙎𝙏𝙊𝙋 𝘼𝙎𝙆𝙄𝙉𝙂” seems highly unprofessional and frankly rude considering the Jewish man in the cell next to mine was rocking back and forth while reading a physical Torah in his cell today even though he has the same tablet and there is an electronic Torah on the tablet as well. I’ve been kind about asking for a Bible but at this point these people are just violating my right to religious freedoms.”

These people are incompatible with the West. We don’t share the same values.

As darkness settles over Minneapolis, two locals keep the vibes warm with an outdoor meal by the fire.

WHAT A GREAT DAY FOR DALTON EATHERLY! TLDR: The State's case against Eatherly appears to be utterly lacking in ANY LEGAL MERIT WHATEVER, based upon what appears to be the official Affidavit of Complaint just made public (attached). This in a case in which the State's BURDEN is proof of guilt, and disproof of self-defense, beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. All of it: So, it appears the affidavit of complaint against Dalton "Chud the Builder" Eatherly has been made public, and the contents will ABSOLUTELY SHOCK many of you. FIRST SHOCKER: THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT DALTON HAVING UTTERED ANY RACIAL SLUR TOWARDS JOSHUA FOX WHATEVER, SO AS TO HAVE PROVOKED THE FIGHT AND THUS TO HAVE LOST THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF SELF-DEFENSE. NOT. ONE. WORD. That was Dalton's biggest potential vulnerability on self-defense, and we can now be confident that we can put that concern to rest. But it gets even BETTER for Dalton. SECOND SHOCKER: Even if self-defense IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, the Affidavit of Complaint fails to present ANY evidence-based narrative that Dalton has committed ANY CRIME WHATEVER. (But, of course, self-defense WILL be raised, only further buttressing Dalton's legal position.) Specifically, there's literally not a SINGLE WORD in this Affidavit of Complaint that describes ANY criminal conduct whatever. I've embedded the Affidavit in my possession, but for purposes of succinctness, the relevant portions reads: "... Dalton Eatherly and Joshua Fox engaged in a verbal altercation in front of the Montgomery County Courthouse." This is not a crime, unless it's merely the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct, which would apply equally to both Eatherly AND Foxx. And in any case Eatherly has not been charged with disorderly conduct (nor Fox, of course). "During this verbal altercation, Mr. Eatherly turned his body in a bladed stance towards Mr. Fox ..." There's nothing unlawful about taking a defensive stance when dealing with an angry antagonist. Certainly Eatherly is not charged with the "crime" of "taking a bladed stance." "... and reached for his firearm located in his right jacket pocket." Again, there's nothing unlawful about reaching for a firearm in one's pocket in preparation for possible necessary self-defense. Note that Eatherly is not charged with the "crime" of "reaching for a firearm in located in his right jacket pocket." "Thereafter, a physical altercation ensued." Note the passive voice. The "altercation ensued." There's no claim that EATHERLY initiated the "altercation." Indeed, if anything, to the extent the affidavit has detailed Eatherly's conduct, the absence of any representation of his conduct to indicate that it was EATHERLY who initiated the altercation, we can only infer that it was instead FOX who initiated the altercation. This would, of course, make Eatherly the VICTIM of Fox's unlawful attack upon him. The next paragraph: "Mr. Eatherly discharged his firearm, striking Mr. Fox multiple times." There's nothing inherently unlawful about discharging a firearm and shooting someone multiple times. Thousands of shootings that fit this description occur every year, and qualify as perfectly lawful self-defense. Of course, now self-defense need actually be put on the table. Then there's a discussion of Fox being flown to a hospital, followed by: "In addition, at the time shots were fired, there were several innocent bystanders in the area. Surveillance video fo the incident shows a ricocheting projectile hitting nearby walls." Again, there is nothing inherently unlawful about firing shots that miss the intended target. Police involved in lawful shootings of suspects routinely miss about 70% of the shots fired. Those shots ALSO go flying about the neighborhood until they hit something. None of that is a crime, absent evidence of recklessness--and the affidavit provides no statement of recklessness. Indeed, not a word of recklessness. Note that if the shots were fired in lawful self-defense, as a matter of law they were not fired recklessly. I would also note that there's not a word in this affidavit that even contests, much less contradicts, even a single legal element of Dalton's anticipated claim of self-defense. Not Innocence, not Imminence, not Proportionality, not Avoidance, and Not Reasonableness. Not a single element. Not a word of it. If this were a civil case, I would argue that this complaint fails to state a cause of action. Indeed, it's hard to recall the last time I saw an Affidavit of Complaint so utterly lacking in legal substance whatever. At this point I have to say that I've never felt more positive about Dalton Eatherly's claim of self-defense, at least based upon the representations of this apparently official "Affidavit of Complaint." If these facts provided in this Affidavit of Complaint are all the State of Tennessee has on which to prosecute Dalton on the attempted murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and malicious firearms possession charges brought against him, I simply don't see any prospect to any reasonable degree of legal certainty of prosecutors securing a conviction on any of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt on the legal merits. HEY! IF YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF USE-OF-FORCE LEGAL ANALYSIS, and would like to know more about how to be HARD TO CONVICT if YOU are ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, consider picking up a FREE copy of my best-selling plain-English book, "The Law of Self-Defense: Principles" (we only ask that you cover the S&H). lawofselfdefense.com/FREEBOO… @AmiriKing @ArchetypeTheory @JackPosobiec @DLoesch @Timcast @TheOfficerTatum @MyronGainesX @TateTheTalisman

Huge thank you to everyone who is supporting me through this battle. Couldn’t do it without the Chud army! givesendgo.com/HelpChud?utm_…