- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trial set to begin in murder of Austin Metcalf by Karmelo Anthony; Verdict is GUILTY
Posted on 6/6/26 at 9:36 pm to rt3
Posted on 6/6/26 at 9:36 pm to rt3
quote:
This is actually interesting
If Austin had stabbed Karmelo... Austin could've used this in his defense as they were under Austin's school's tent and tents are the "team locker room" in T&F & he was a team leader protecting his teammates & their possessions
That wouldn’t have worked or fit under that. Thats a school and district rule/policy not a law. If he would have just continued to stay under tent his school or the district may have punished him or kept him from competing, but it would not have been unlawful. Anthony would not have unlawfully entered with force but entered & stayed against the district and school rules, and he would have been lawfully at the stadium.
0
Posted on 6/6/26 at 9:38 pm to TitleistProV1X
quote:
One thing that I haven’t really seen mentioned is the fact that zero bystanders recorded any of the incident. Their tent was setup on the bottom level in front of several tents. If anything had been brewing that looked interesting you know kids would’ve taken their phone out and started recording. All of his teammates talked about how fast it happened and how shocked they were.
I think a student mentioned the part about students recording with cellphones during testimony today.
Edit: might have been yesterday.
This post was edited on 6/6/26 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 6/6/26 at 9:45 pm to dallastigers
quote:
I think a student mentioned the part about students recording with cellphones during testimony today.
I believe it was one of the four black students for the prosecution that mentioned this.
Posted on 6/6/26 at 9:50 pm to LemmyLives
Matt Walsh said that only a few very select news reporters have actually viewed this footage and obviously couldn’t talk about it. It must be pretty damning if it’s yet to be released.
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:06 pm to sledgehammer
quote:
Matt Walsh said that only a few very select news reporters have actually viewed this footage
The reporter I've been following from DFW said it was shown to a portion of the courtroom, but there were no apparent restrictions on documenting it.
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:15 pm to LemmyLives
I’m think he was talking about how they viewed it sometime last year and not talking about the current trial. He was contrasting the difference in how fast the George Floyd footage was released compared to this case emphasizing that if the footage benefited Carmelo it would’ve already been released.
This post was edited on 6/6/26 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:18 pm to forkedintheroad
quote:
Who the hell does the defense even call to the stand?
community organizers
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:41 pm to Proximo
The reaction to this story is the ultimate barometer of “let’s see just how far we’ve fallen as a society”.
A human being who claims to have an ounce of intelligence and defends this murderous moron has to be of satanic delusions
A human being who claims to have an ounce of intelligence and defends this murderous moron has to be of satanic delusions
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:43 pm to dallastigers
Im copying and pasting from a post I made in another thread.
I don't know Texas law, but I do recall those two idiots in GA a few years ago who lost the ability to claim self defense because they had illegally detained the victim at gun point..
In this case I think it could be argued that because KA illegally carried a weapon onto school grounds or a school function where weapons are prohibited, he lost his right to claim self defense... A quick google search says it's a 3rd degree felony in Texas
Texas is a "Stand Your Ground" state, meaning you generally have no legal obligation to run away before defending yourself. However, according to Texas Penal Code § 9.31(e), the right to stand your ground only applies if you are "not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used.
In a standard Texas self-defense case, the law presumes your fear was reasonable if you are protecting yourself against an intruder in your home, vehicle, or business. However, under ?Texas Penal Code § 9.31, this legal presumption is completely defeated if you are actively engaged in criminal activity (other than a minor traffic violation).
IBy carrying a weapon onto school grounds/ property, he was engaged in a 3rd degree felony. According to Texas law. He lost his right to stand his ground and had a duty to retreat. Secondly, he lost the presumption of reasonableness, meaning he lost the presumption that he was in reasonable fear for his life.. He fricked himself the moment he stepped on school grounds with a knife.
Also, Provocation (" Baiting" the Victim): Under Texas Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4), you cannot claim self-defense if you purposely provoked the other person into using force as a pretext to attack them
Repeatedly daring Metcalf to "touch me and find out" is most definitely provocation.
I don't know Texas law, but I do recall those two idiots in GA a few years ago who lost the ability to claim self defense because they had illegally detained the victim at gun point..
In this case I think it could be argued that because KA illegally carried a weapon onto school grounds or a school function where weapons are prohibited, he lost his right to claim self defense... A quick google search says it's a 3rd degree felony in Texas
Texas is a "Stand Your Ground" state, meaning you generally have no legal obligation to run away before defending yourself. However, according to Texas Penal Code § 9.31(e), the right to stand your ground only applies if you are "not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used.
In a standard Texas self-defense case, the law presumes your fear was reasonable if you are protecting yourself against an intruder in your home, vehicle, or business. However, under ?Texas Penal Code § 9.31, this legal presumption is completely defeated if you are actively engaged in criminal activity (other than a minor traffic violation).
IBy carrying a weapon onto school grounds/ property, he was engaged in a 3rd degree felony. According to Texas law. He lost his right to stand his ground and had a duty to retreat. Secondly, he lost the presumption of reasonableness, meaning he lost the presumption that he was in reasonable fear for his life.. He fricked himself the moment he stepped on school grounds with a knife.
Also, Provocation (" Baiting" the Victim): Under Texas Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4), you cannot claim self-defense if you purposely provoked the other person into using force as a pretext to attack them
Repeatedly daring Metcalf to "touch me and find out" is most definitely provocation.
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:48 pm to LemmyLives
The defense comes out the gate focused on trying to show Anthony being in area in first place wasn’t that unreasonable. They skirt around being asked to leave and refusing. Under cross Anthony’s coach said he would expect his players to leave other areas if asked by that school.
With apologies in advance for quoting Hillary - what difference does it make? This is a murder charge based on the intentional usage of immediate deadly force not an assault based on a punch.
If the exact same scenario happens under Centennial’s tent and Austin being the one overstepping those tent boundaries or even telling Anthony to get out of his own school’s tent there is still no justification for use of deadly force by Anthony as none of Austin’s actions were deadly force. It would also still not have been reasonable for Anthony to believe deadly force was required to use against Austin in self defense.
This is especially true at a school track meet with coaches, staff, students, and some parents around. It’s reasonable to assume coaches and others would have broken up fights like coaches and other staff do all the time.
In what world is pushing between students on school grounds or at school event justification for the smaller or blacker student to defend himself using immediate deadly force with a weapon he knew was against the rules to have at the time and knowing the other student wouldn’t have one due to following the rules?
With apologies in advance for quoting Hillary - what difference does it make? This is a murder charge based on the intentional usage of immediate deadly force not an assault based on a punch.
If the exact same scenario happens under Centennial’s tent and Austin being the one overstepping those tent boundaries or even telling Anthony to get out of his own school’s tent there is still no justification for use of deadly force by Anthony as none of Austin’s actions were deadly force. It would also still not have been reasonable for Anthony to believe deadly force was required to use against Austin in self defense.
This is especially true at a school track meet with coaches, staff, students, and some parents around. It’s reasonable to assume coaches and others would have broken up fights like coaches and other staff do all the time.
In what world is pushing between students on school grounds or at school event justification for the smaller or blacker student to defend himself using immediate deadly force with a weapon he knew was against the rules to have at the time and knowing the other student wouldn’t have one due to following the rules?
This post was edited on 6/6/26 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 6/6/26 at 10:54 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
In this case I think it could be argued that because KA illegally carried a weapon onto school grounds or a school function where weapons are prohibited, he lost his right to claim self defense... A quick google search says it's a 3rd degree felony in Texas
I don’t think 5.5 inch knives or below are covered anymore as one of those weapons which makes tbe knife issue a school and district policy for a 3.5 inch knife.
This post was edited on 6/6/26 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 6/6/26 at 11:10 pm to dallastigers
quote:
I don’t think 5.5 inch knives or below are covered anymore as one of those weapons making it be a school and district policy for a 3.5 inch knife.
Possibly, but the weapon's legal classification doesn't save his self-defense claim because of Texas Penal Code § 9.31(b)(4) (Provocation).Under Texas law, you completely forfeit your right to claim self-defense if you intentionally provoke someone into using force against you just to give yourself a pretext to attack them.
Numerous student witnesses testified that Anthony refused to leave the rival team's tent after being asked 15 times, appeared to be gripping the knife according to testimony, and repeatedly dared Metcalf by saying "touch me and find out." He wasn't leaving the tent because he felt emboldened by the knife he was clutching. He wanted someone to touch him because he wanted to retaliate.
Even if the knife itself didn't trigger a felony weapons charge on school grounds, his deliberate acts of baiting the victim mean he legally "provoked the difficulty." In Texas, you cannot intentionally trap someone into a physical confrontation and then claim you "feared for your life" when they finally react to your provocation
Posted on 6/6/26 at 11:12 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
I don't know Texas law, but I do recall those two idiots in GA a few years ago who lost the ability to claim self defense because they had illegally detained the victim at gun point..
I remember that, the perp/victim was running through new construction houses I think, and got cornered. (Not a lawyer)
GA law, at the time I lived there in the early 00s, was that you could use deadly force to prevent a forcible felony.
quote:
Murder
Burglary, Robbery, Armed robbery, Kidnapping, Hijacking (aircraft or motor vehicle) ,Aggravated stalking, Rape Aggravated child molestation, Aggravated sexual battery, Arson
So, you weren't allowed to use deadly force because someone supposedly committed assault by pushing you out of a tent, or even beating the shite out of someone to where you got pulled off someone.
I will point out that Henry Nowak was murdered six months ago, and most of the perps, not including the cops, have been sentenced. And yet here we are, a year later, the trial (ETA: barely started) hasn't started for this oxygen thief.
This post was edited on 6/6/26 at 11:45 pm
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:28 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
It’s not dissimilar to how the KKK used to stir up poor white trash making them believe blacks were going to harm them and/or were the cause of their problems. It’s a favorite page of the Dem’s identity playbook
quote:
Wal Mart Republicanism. MAGA is the ultimate outcome. They are in fact the Dixiecrats of yesteryear.
quote:
Perfect example of the mindset that would set this murder free. Tens of millions of Americans are warped like this, unfortunately.
I’m not sure what’s more scary - that you would post something this idiotic or that multiple folks would upvoted it?
Please explain how you take a factual statement about the party shift in the South to somehow say I support “letting murderers go free”?
The poster I was replying too seemed to say that identity politics was primarily the playbook of the Democrat party, when in fact it’s almost the entirety of what the MAGA movement is built on. In all honesty, it sucks that both sides use it to divide working class people while being corporate tools, but that’s a discussion for another day.
FWIW, I believe I am already on record in this thread that simply offensive words in no way justify murder, and such a defense should be rejected.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 12:49 am to lsusa
quote:
I’m not sure what’s more scary - that you would post something this idiotic or that multiple folks would upvoted it?
what’s more scary is your insistence that neutrality is virtuous
Posted on 6/7/26 at 1:05 am to lsusa
quote:This is some BS on multiple fronts. You have selectively quoted (your selective quote in bold below) what I said twice now to make it “seem like” what you wanted it to be and ignore exactly what the Dems are doing now to try to post some low IQ response of “MAGA is the Dixiecrats of yesteryear.”
The poster I was replying too seemed to say that identity politics was primarily the playbook of the Democrat party, when in fact it’s almost the entirety of what the MAGA movement is built on.
quote:quote:Wal Mart Republicanism. MAGA is the ultimate outcome. They are in fact the Dixiecrats of yesteryear.quote:
This attitude that white people want harm to befall black people is the fault of the media.
It’s not dissimilar to how the KKK used to stir up poor white trash making them believe blacks were going to harm them and/or were the cause of their problems. It’s a favorite page of the Dem’s identity playbook. Make them all victims to their opposition, and then keep their focus on their “villain” instead of how much they don’t like each other or think that they are not getting as much as other groups in the Dem identity spectrum. If fighting starts amongst themselves then find something on Trump or white people to blow up out of proportion to redirect their focus.
I will just quote my response again below.
quote:
Then why are the Dems still doing it?
I will include the part you left out in your quote which specifically described the Dem playbook part (bolded is what you selectively quoted). They just flip or shift the “villain” based on make up of their identity coalition as needed. They used to push against illegals when labor unions were an important part of their coalition. They also used to love Jews and one of their current villains Israel. I remember when Obama, Hillary, and the most other Dems loved another recent villain, Russia, and even made jokes about people living in the past with outdated concerns on Russia.
This post was edited on 6/7/26 at 1:07 am
Posted on 6/7/26 at 2:16 am to dallastigers
I disagree with Branca when he steps outside his scope of knowledge and pontificates about shite he half understands but the man knows self defense law. Anthony is cooked...and he basted himself.
ETA: Why did the prosecution have such a short argument? I don't know...because with an open and shut case all you can do is frick it up. 17 year old stabbed a dude at a track meet under another team's tent. That's it. He wasn't jumped. He wasn't restrained. He wasn't beaten. Not a mark on the boy. Done. Call the witnesses, verify the scene, make the defense work.
ETA: Why did the prosecution have such a short argument? I don't know...because with an open and shut case all you can do is frick it up. 17 year old stabbed a dude at a track meet under another team's tent. That's it. He wasn't jumped. He wasn't restrained. He wasn't beaten. Not a mark on the boy. Done. Call the witnesses, verify the scene, make the defense work.
This post was edited on 6/7/26 at 2:19 am
Posted on 6/7/26 at 7:27 am to PurpleandGold Motown
Judge Joe Brown goes off..
Posted on 6/7/26 at 7:51 am to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
Why did the prosecution have such a short argument? I don't know
I think it goes back to what I previously posted about self defense and stand your ground in Texas. He may or may not have been committing a felony depending on the length of the blade carried onto school property. That alone would eliminate the protections of stand your ground. More importantly though, according to Texas state law, you cannot provoke someone into physically assaulting you and then claim self defense. Refusing to leave after repeated requests while clutching a knife and daring anyone to touch you and find out is provocation. The state’s witnesses repeatedly said he was the aggressor which destroys his self defense claim. Metcalf pushing him or touching his shoulder is irrelevant according to state law because KM repeatedly provoked him.
Posted on 6/7/26 at 8:05 am to Blizzard of Chizz
I have been listening to different reports and a couple of them state that the surviving brother (HM) was the first to interact with KA. HM has been on interviews stating the same, which contradicts witness testimony.
I imagine that any or all of the witnesses could perjure themselves and "get their stories straight" so they can avenge their classmate's death... OR the witnesses started paying attention to what was happening at different times in the 4 minute altercation and perceive it differently
Gotta let the attorneys, judge and jury weed through the bullshite and determine what the facts are as they occured.
I imagine that any or all of the witnesses could perjure themselves and "get their stories straight" so they can avenge their classmate's death... OR the witnesses started paying attention to what was happening at different times in the 4 minute altercation and perceive it differently
Gotta let the attorneys, judge and jury weed through the bullshite and determine what the facts are as they occured.
This post was edited on 6/7/26 at 9:07 am
Page 21 of 108
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News