Karmelo Anthony Guilty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

What mental state do you think is required under TX state law in this circumstance, specifically?

The defense didn't argue lack of intent, they argued self defense (and failed).

I'm not saying he lacked all intent. I'm saying I think the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction rather than murder. To me, there was enough evidence of a sudden confrontation and poor judgment that I have reasonable doubt about the murder charge. The fact that the defense focused on self-defense doesn't answer that question, it just means that's the theory they chose to present, and I don't think it was an effective one.

Voluntary manslaughter generally involves adequate provocation. Pretty hard to argue it if he started the fight.

We obviously viewed the evidence differently. I don't think the sequence of events was as clear-cut as simply saying he "started the fight." There was testimony that Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, and then a physical shove before the stabbing. People can interpret those events differently, and I came away believing the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction. We're probably not going to agree, and that's okay.

I really would like to understand your position. What mental state requirement do you think the State was obligated to prove that it failed to prove?

Maybe I didn't express my point very well. I'm not claiming there's a specific mental state element that the State completely failed to prove. My point is that, after watching the entire trial, I don't think the overall facts and circumstances justified a murder conviction. The sequence of events: a confrontation, a verbal exchange, a shove, and a stabbing that happened within seconds, led me to believe manslaughter was the more appropriate verdict. I understand why others disagree, but that's simply how I interpreted the evidence. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me; I'm giving my opinion based on the testimony presented. I've posted several times my thoughts (responding to you and another person too); if you don't understand my position, that's OK.

You didn't watch the entire trial. The trial was not televised.

At best, you read second hand transcripts and apparently a ton of made up social media commentary.

[Anonymous]

His mom looks like she’s 20 on the livestreams lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

He went through Austin's sternum with the knife.

He stabbed him with such force within seconds of Austin moving towards him. The seconds included opening the blade in advance while it was inside the backpack, then pulling it out of the backpack to get it directly into Austin's heart.

This wasn't sudden passion. He was prepared and planning to stab someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

10 years for killing a 17 year old unprovoked with a knife seems like too little, though o agree the potential of 99 years is absurd.

Why? If this person is so dangerous that he carries a knife around and his emotions can get overwhelmed enough for him to kill in a matter of minutes over a silly disagreement, why shouldn't this person be in jail for the rest of his life? This is exactly the kind of person that can't live in a civil society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

This seems like a classic case of reverse engineering - you have a desired outcome, and are torturing the facts to fit that outcome.

Also, if you really watched all the testimony, you are in dire need of a hobby, and to go outside and touch some grass.

No, she didn't watch the testimony.

The trial has no cameras and was not televised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

10 years for killing a 17 year old unprovoked with a knife seems like too little, though o agree the potential of 99 years is absurd.

Why? If this person is so dangerous that he carries a knife around and his emotions can get overwhelmed enough for him to kill in a matter of minutes over a silly disagreement, why shouldn't this person be in jail for the rest of his life? This is exactly the kind of person that can't live in a civil society.

He deserves capital punishment. It was premeditated and he has no remorse. His family are also ill behaved, placing all the blame on Austin. Austin’s family had enormous grace, something the Anthonys will never have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

What mental state do you think is required under TX state law in this circumstance, specifically?

The defense didn't argue lack of intent, they argued self defense (and failed).

I'm not saying he lacked all intent. I'm saying I think the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction rather than murder. To me, there was enough evidence of a sudden confrontation and poor judgment that I have reasonable doubt about the murder charge. The fact that the defense focused on self-defense doesn't answer that question, it just means that's the theory they chose to present, and I don't think it was an effective one.

Voluntary manslaughter generally involves adequate provocation. Pretty hard to argue it if he started the fight.

We obviously viewed the evidence differently. I don't think the sequence of events was as clear-cut as simply saying he "started the fight." There was testimony that Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, and then a physical shove before the stabbing. People can interpret those events differently, and I came away believing the circumstances supported a manslaughter conviction. We're probably not going to agree, and that's okay.

I really would like to understand your position. What mental state requirement do you think the State was obligated to prove that it failed to prove?

Maybe I didn't express my point very well. I'm not claiming there's a specific mental state element that the State completely failed to prove. My point is that, after watching the entire trial, I don't think the overall facts and circumstances justified a murder conviction. The sequence of events: a confrontation, a verbal exchange, a shove, and a stabbing that happened within seconds, led me to believe manslaughter was the more appropriate verdict. I understand why others disagree, but that's simply how I interpreted the evidence. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me; I'm giving my opinion based on the testimony presented. I've posted several times my thoughts (responding to you and another person too); if you don't understand my position, that's OK.

You didn't watch the entire trial. The trial was not televised.

At best, you read second hand transcripts and apparently a ton of made up social media commentary.

And is unfamiliar with Texas law. Though she conceded that.

I think the family took the Go Fund Me money and spent it on the house and car instead of KA's defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

10 years for killing a 17 year old unprovoked with a knife seems like too little, though o agree the potential of 99 years is absurd.

Why? If this person is so dangerous that he carries a knife around and his emotions can get overwhelmed enough for him to kill in a matter of minutes over a silly disagreement, why shouldn't this person be in jail for the rest of his life? This is exactly the kind of person that can't live in a civil society.

He deserves capital punishment. It was premeditated and he has no remorse. His family are also ill behaved, placing all the blame on Austin. Austin’s family had enormous grace, something the Anthonys will never have.

That’s not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

10 years for killing a 17 year old unprovoked with a knife seems like too little, though o agree the potential of 99 years is absurd.

Why? If this person is so dangerous that he carries a knife around and his emotions can get overwhelmed enough for him to kill in a matter of minutes over a silly disagreement, why shouldn't this person be in jail for the rest of his life? This is exactly the kind of person that can't live in a civil society.

35 years seems right. Plenty of time to reflect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

He received over $600,000 from his ho fund me. It sounds as if it might not have gone to legal defense and instead went elsewhere.

A murder defense can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has been said there were death threats to the Anthony family, including the 3 younger siblings, so the family had to move, hire security, and because of the case, the father's place of employment was harassed, so he had to take a leave of absence. They stated some of the funds were used for those reasons as well. I don't think they were going on shopping sprees and splurging on luxuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

He received over $600,000 from his ho fund me. It sounds as if it might not have gone to legal defense and instead went elsewhere.

A murder defense can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It has been said there were death threats to the Anthony family, including the 3 younger siblings, so the family had to move, hire security, and because of the case, the father's place of employment was harassed, so he had to take a leave of absence. They stated some of the funds were used for those reasons as well. I don't think they were going on shopping sprees and splurging on luxuries.

If they didn’t stunt in public and make so many race baiting comments there wouldn’t have been death threats. They’re bad people and I’m glad their son is in jail. Very glad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His defense team was horrible. Every witness they called made the prosecution's case. It was bad; he should file an appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

I really think they got this wrong. He should have been convicted of manslaughter, not murder.

Can you explain why you think murder isn’t the appropriate result? Is there a legal basis for that or just vibes? Because this is paradigmatic second degree murder.

Not "vibes", I followed the trial all week. My disagreement is with whether the evidence established the mental state required for murder versus manslaughter. You may think the jury got it right, and that's fine, but it's a legal disagreement, not an emotional one. Also, Texas doesn't have a separate offense called "second-degree murder," so I'm not sure why you're using that terminology.

To establish the elements of murder, prosecutors need only prove that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim. The Texas murder statute doesn't require proof of intent to kill. Do you think that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karmelo Anthony intended to cause serious bodily harm to Austin Metcalf?

I'm not claiming the jury had to convict on manslaughter. I'm saying I think they should have. The fact that the judge instructed the jury on manslaughter is significant. Judges do not give lesser-included offense instructions just because the defense asks for them. There must be a legal basis in the evidence for the jury to rationally consider that lesser offense. In this case, the judge denied the defense's request to include criminally negligent homicide but did allow manslaughter, meaning the judge concluded there was enough evidence for the jury to consider that option. The jury evaluated the same evidence and chose murder. I simply interpret the sequence of events differently and believe the circumstances fit manslaughter better.

But WHY? How do the facts of this case establish manslaughter but not murder?

Is it that you just think murder is too harsh and manslaughter feels like a better fit?

No, it's not because murder feels too harsh. It's because of how I interpreted the facts. There was a confrontation that escalated within seconds: Metcalf approached him, there was a verbal exchange, a shove, and then the stabbing. Looking at that entire sequence, I came away believing this was a reckless, rapidly escalating encounter that fit manslaughter better than murder. The judge believed there was enough evidence for the jury to consider manslaughter. The jury chose murder. Had I been a juror, I would have chosen manslaughter.

You watched it and missed that he was asked to leave 15 times? That wasn't all within seconds.

I didn't miss that testimony. My point is that "around 15 times" was one witness's characterization, not an objectively counted number. More importantly, my opinion isn't based on that single fact. I looked at the entire sequence of events and interpreted it differently. You may see a prolonged confrontation that supports a murder conviction; I saw a rapidly escalating encounter that, in my view, fit manslaughter better. That's why reasonable people can disagree.

It wasn't seconds. It was several minutes. Your analysis is pretty flawed.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer. I’m not saying the entire interaction lasted only seconds. I’m saying the physical escalation from the shove/contact to the stabbing appeared to happen very quickly. I still interpret the overall sequence differently than you do, and I still think manslaughter was the better fit. But I understand why others see it differently.

The reason you're getting so much pushback is because there are only two ways to get to manslaughter here, and neither of them fits with the facts as you're describing them.

The first way is imperfect self-defense, which requires that Karmelo Anthony held a genuine but objectively unreasonable belief that he needed to stab Austin Metcalf to prevent Metcalf from using a similar level of force against him. But Metcalf was unarmed and wasn't using anything close to lethal force against Anthony.

The only other path to manslaughter is if you believe that Karmelo Anthony acted recklessly as to Metcalf, but did not intend to kill him OR cause him serious bodily harm. But the evidence is overwhelming that Anthony intended, at a minimum, to cause Metcalf serious bodily injury.

I understand your instinct that this is manslaughter, and in a jurisdiction that uses the common law definition of manslaughter (that is, the defendant had the intent to harm the victim, but not kill him, and that results in the victim's death), you'd have a good point. The problem is that, in Texas, that conduct constitutes murder.

That's a thoughtful explanation, and I appreciate it. It's possible that my intuition aligns more with the common understanding of manslaughter than with Texas's statutory definition. It's clearly a very divisive case, and I understand why people have such different interpretations of both the facts and the law. It's an incredibly tragic situation all around.

PP here (I'm also the poster that identified themselves as a prosecutor). I don't necessarily agree with your legal analysis, but I think your instinct that this outcome feels harsh is a reasonable one. In many places, this would be resolved a guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and a 10-15 year sentence. The whole thing feels so unnecessary and senseless.

10 years for killing a 17 year old unprovoked with a knife seems like too little, though o agree the potential of 99 years is absurd.

Why? If this person is so dangerous that he carries a knife around and his emotions can get overwhelmed enough for him to kill in a matter of minutes over a silly disagreement, why shouldn't this person be in jail for the rest of his life? This is exactly the kind of person that can't live in a civil society.

35 years seems right. Plenty of time to reflect.

He won’t reflect. He’ll come out and do drugs and get arrested against. He’s an idiot.

[Anonymous]

It feels as if KA had a chip on his shoulder being at the rich kids' school and was looking to provoke the other kids in hopes of setting up a situation where he could kill someone and then claim self defense. Clearly, there was no way he was going to stab someone and get away with it. He even said he did it, that it was self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels as if KA had a chip on his shoulder being at the rich kids' school and was looking to provoke the other kids in hopes of setting up a situation where he could kill someone and then claim self defense. Clearly, there was no way he was going to stab someone and get away with it. He even said he did it, that it was self defense.

A total idiot. Like his family spending all that money on Goodies instead of his defense. Joke of a family and he was never a “student” in any meaningful sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My heart breaks for his family. I pray the appeals process is swift.

I hope you’re a troll.

No prayers for the kid who Karmelo stabbed in the heart, leaving a “gaping hole” in the victim’s chest. The kid who bled out in this twin brother’s arms.

Hope the murderer rots and in prison. Let’s see how tough he is there.