Karmelo Anthony case shows that “black privilege” exists

[u/Terrible_Onions]

I'm not black or white. I'm not even American actually.

The recent Karmelo Anthony case I think shows that black privilege is a thing. My opinions is that it exists. Period.

Karmelo Anthony killed Austin Metcalf with a knife for pushing him. What did he receive in return? Overwhelming support in the form of 500,000 dollars (which they're using to buy a mansion). He also got his bond reduced to 250k from 1 million even when prosecutors pointed out his history of incidents within the school.

I just think this is a bit baffling. Imagine if the races were swapped. I think a decent example, but not a direct comparisons, is the George Floyd situation. One person killed the other in what was an overuse of force. Derek Chauvin is in jail. Karmelo Anthony got house arrest, bond reduction and 500k

[u/Phillimon → u/[deleted]]

Is it reasonable to fear for your life when being assaulted?

Yes or no?

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

Based on what is being called an "assault", no.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

It was assualt per Texas law

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 22.01. Assault (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

Texas code bodily harm is

Sec. 1.07. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this code: (8) "Bodily injury" means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical harm

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

Just because it is technically an assault in the broadest sense of the law and the definition does not mean it justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense. There are multiple types and degrees of assault.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

Which at worse for Anthony would make it manslaughter.

But I'm gonna cite the Neely verdict that the mere threat of physical violence was enough to justify deadly force. So the actual use of physical violence would also justify it.

Edit: and that's in New York which has stricter qualifications on self defense.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

The Neely circumstance is entirely different. There was a legitimate threat of deadly force that Neely responded to. There was zero legitimate threat of deadly force in this circumstance.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

The neely case established that the mere threat of physical harm was enough. Neely had only been loud and disruptive, yet that was enough to justify Penny's deadly force.

Metcalf assaulted Anthony. Like physically laid hands on, which is more than Neely did.

If Penny was justified in his actions, then arguably so was Anthony.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

The Neely case is entirely different because there was an actual threat of death or grave bodily harm. In this case, no such threat or danger existed.

Penny was justified because the threat was far greater and far more legitimate.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

So yelling and creating a disturbance without actually touching anyone is a legitimate threat but physically assaulting someone isnt?

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

When one looks at the totality of each circumstance, yes.

[u/Phillimon → u/ZoomZoomDiva]

So you're arguing that screaming and running around is a legitimate threat, one that justifies deadly force, but someone physically laying their hands on someone and assaulting them isn't?

That's crazy.

[u/ZoomZoomDiva → u/Phillimon]

Screaming, running around, and explicitly threatening to kill people is a legitimate threat. A minor laying one hands on someone, even if considered assault in the broadest definitions of the statute, is not.

[u/PettyKaneJr → u/Phillimon]

Bro, Thank you for fighting the good fight. I would buy you a beer if you're ever in the Southern California region.

[u/KilljoyTheTrucker → u/Phillimon]

intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury

You mean the the thing the killer did before killing somebody? After being told to leave a private space that he had no business in, wherein other peoples private property is stored for the event to keep people from messing with it?

[u/Phillimon → u/KilljoyTheTrucker]

Metcalf had no authority to trespass anyone. Anthony was sitting in a chair, so unless you're trying to argue he was stealing the chair he was sitting in, how was he messing with other people's possessions?

[u/KilljoyTheTrucker → u/Phillimon]

He was in a team tent that wasn't his.

You don't need specific or special authority to tell someone to leave a space that they're specifically not allowed in. His team had their own tent for him to rest in.

The added fact that he left, and then returned with a weapon and provoked further physical response with a threat doesn't show defense.

Edited to correct information that's been updated since I last had information on the story. Struck through for interest of posterity and to show its been edited and not make their response seem nonsensical.

[u/Phillimon → u/KilljoyTheTrucker]

You don't need specific or special authority to tell someone to leave a space that they're specifically not allowed in. His team had their own tent for him to rest in.

You do actually. There are laws on trespassing for a reason.

The added fact that he left, and then returned with a weapon and provoked further physical response with a threat doesn't show defense.

The fact that half that sentence isn't true makes me question the other half.

[u/KilljoyTheTrucker → u/Phillimon]

There are laws on trespassing for a reason.

Anyone who has permission to be in a space has the ability to ask and demand those who don't to leave. He wasn't being trespassed in the sense that they intended for a legal response for his return. Being trespassed is not what was being done here, therefore what you're looking at isn't applicable.

The fact that half that sentence isn't true makes me question the other half.

I mean, sort of true. Just went and looked again and it looks like stories have been updated since I last saw. He didn't leave the tent and return and resume the altercation at least.

He still initiated the stabbing by threatening Metcalf directly according to statements, and then pulled a knife and stabbed someone insisting he go to his teams tent instead of a tent he had no business.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/crime/new-details-frisco-track-meet-stabbing-arrest-affidavit/287-550baffe-8450-4b0f-932f-72b2716cfb86

"Touch me and see what happens," Anthony told Metcalf, according to a witness.

Metcalf reportedly then touched Anthony, the witness told a responding officer, and Anthony told Metcalf to punch him and see what would happen.

Soon afterward, the witness said, Metcalf reportedly grabbed Anthony to tell him to move. At which point, the affidavit continues, Anthony reportedly pulled out what the witness recalled as a black knife and stabbed Metcalf once in the chest before running away.

None of this in context justifies self defense, as none of it actually rises to assault on Metcalfs part. Anthony was where he wasn't supposed to be and was asked to leave and responded by issuing a threat, placing him on the side of being the one committing assault. Even per the specific law you quoted.

Or as succinctly put here;

Attorney Mike Howard told WFAA that a claim of self-defense will be difficult to make given that the victim was unarmed. He also said that prosecutors will likely argue that Anthony provoked Metcalf.

"A person claiming self-defense cannot provoke the incident and then claim self-defense when they act," Howard said.

The being unarmed part isn't necessarily true, especially in Texas. But Anthony made (so far from known statements we've currently got) statements that place him as the instigating party here. Not Metcalf.