Karmelo Anthony Guilty

[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: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.

That's the thing . . . the case itself--the facts and the governing law--are not divisive, or even particularly controversial. It's a clear-cut case of murder, based on the Texas statute. It's only when issues of race are interjected does it become divisive, which leads people to argue for outcomes (both ways) that the facts and law do not support.

Agree, it’s not divisive.

The murderers family tried to paint it that way with fundraisers, spending sprees, protesters, and social media. That all failed, people and teens made fools of themselves lying this week and the last couple months.

I bet a ton of families pulled their kids from that school district or straight up moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if it was posted, but he got 35 years.

Whoa. That was fast

Knew it would be 30-40. It’s fine. Young influenced impulsive high schooler, but apart of me thinks it’s too low, and he deserved life, but it doesn’t seem like he was bad kid. He did have a future.

[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.

That's the thing . . . the case itself--the facts and the governing law--are not divisive, or even particularly controversial. It's a clear-cut case of murder, based on the Texas statute. It's only when issues of race are interjected does it become divisive, which leads people to argue for outcomes (both ways) that the facts and law do not support.

Agree, it’s not divisive.

The murderers family tried to paint it that way with fundraisers, spending sprees, protesters, and social media. That all failed, people and teens made fools of themselves lying this week and the last couple months.

I bet a ton of families pulled their kids from that school district or straight up moved.

It’s not both ways. Please show me a case in reverse from the last ten years of a white teen knifing a black teen at a sporting event in a premeditated fashion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if it was posted, but he got 35 years.

Whoa. That was fast

Knew it would be 30-40. It’s fine. Young influenced impulsive high schooler, but apart of me thinks it’s too low, and he deserved life, but it doesn’t seem like he was bad kid. He did have a future.

If he’s not a bad kid, then who is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Impact statements from Metcalf's family after sentencing:

His Aunt:
"The impact of his death is permanent," she said. "We will never know what he could have been."

She said her heart breaks for Metcalf's twin brother.

"Why could you not have just left?" she asked. "Reporters will move to other stories. For our family, this is not a story. It is a reality forever."

His Mother:
"Now I only have videos and memories of his laugh," she told Anthony.

She talked about the morning of the track meet. She said she packed her son a snack and gave him a hug without knowing it would be the last time she'd ever feel his arms around her.

"You may have been given a sentence of 35 years. You should feel lucky. I've been sentenced to a lifetime without my son," she said.

His father:
"Since the day he first grabbed my finger, he had my heart with it," he said.

He talked about the joy he felt while watching both of his sons on the field at the same time.

Remorseless murdering teen didn’t shed a tear upon hearing any of that. Only when sentenced to 35 years, which is frankly short and better not be shortened more.

What a flamboyantly misguided family and teen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if it was posted, but he got 35 years.

Whoa. That was fast

Knew it would be 30-40. It’s fine. Young influenced impulsive high schooler, but apart of me thinks it’s too low, and he deserved life, but it doesn’t seem like he was bad kid. He did have a future.

If he’s not a bad kid, then who is?

He’s a text book bad kid.

[Anonymous]

No remorse the entire process would do it for me as a judge.

What a bunch of idiots.

[Anonymous]

Wild car teen with weapons in his school backpack.

Done.

[Anonymous]

Confrontational wild card teen sitting in other schools tents making trouble. Draws a knife. Stabs someone asking him to leave their tent.

[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.

That's the thing . . . the case itself--the facts and the governing law--are not divisive, or even particularly controversial. It's a clear-cut case of murder, based on the Texas statute. It's only when issues of race are interjected does it become divisive, which leads people to argue for outcomes (both ways) that the facts and law do not support.

Agree, it’s not divisive.

The murderers family tried to paint it that way with fundraisers, spending sprees, protesters, and social media. That all failed, people and teens made fools of themselves lying this week and the last couple months.

I bet a ton of families pulled their kids from that school district or straight up moved.

It’s not both ways. Please show me a case in reverse from the last ten years of a white teen knifing a black teen at a sporting event in a premeditated fashion.

No, they just shoot up first graders.

[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.

He didn't plea guilty. Ergo, he rolled the dice.

His ego inflated parents and lawyer took him for a ride big time. Could have pleaded out.

All his buddies lying on the witness stand and easily refuted weren’t a good look either.

The friends were as stupid as KA. His parents birthed him in elementary school by the looks of it. Stole 600,000 and bought a blinged out car. Guess they can visit him in prison in it.

WhoTF donated their after tax money to this BS?

[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.

That's the thing . . . the case itself--the facts and the governing law--are not divisive, or even particularly controversial. It's a clear-cut case of murder, based on the Texas statute. It's only when issues of race are interjected does it become divisive, which leads people to argue for outcomes (both ways) that the facts and law do not support.

Agree, it’s not divisive.

The murderers family tried to paint it that way with fundraisers, spending sprees, protesters, and social media. That all failed, people and teens made fools of themselves lying this week and the last couple months.

I bet a ton of families pulled their kids from that school district or straight up moved.

It’s not both ways. Please show me a case in reverse from the last ten years of a white teen knifing a black teen at a sporting event in a premeditated fashion.

It’s not racially decisive. It’s very clear cut facts and death, murderer and victim. To try to pretend it’s something else is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Not all young black men are thugs. Some come from educated good families, but get influenced by the wrong crowd online. Thats what it looked like happened here. 35 years is long enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guilty 100 percent time to move on. Just race baiting now. Black on black crime is out of control and no protest.

+1

[Anonymous]

Who is protesting?
People who want metal detectors at outdoor track meets?